I have put together a chart to compare five different camera systems - the F3, the AF100, the 600D, the 5D Mark II and the out-dated JVC 111E. This is strictly keeping in mind the budget conscious low-budget filmmaker who's out to make his/her feature film.

Here's a link to my post: A Comparison of Camera Systems for Feature films | Sareesh Sudhakaran (http://sareesh.com/2011/07/comparing-camera-systems-for-feature-films/)

What I've learnt so far, is that among all the systems, the best is either the Canon 600D or the Panasonic GH2. I would appreciate any feedback or comments regarding this. If I've made an error, please let me know.

Thanks,

You haven't included the Sony FS 100, although in the end your options are always limited by the available budget. However, you don't make mention of the downside like the moire found on the Canon.

Thanks Brian...I avoided the FS100 since its 'class' was already covered.

Moire is an issue with the Canon cameras, but it can be minimized through clever usage - especially in a feature film.

I'd say moire would be even more of a problem on a feature film because detail and art direction is important, as is the camera's resolution.

Good art direction, costumes and makeup are essential for feature films. So, if one knows about moire, the designers just have to be careful - the same amount of effort and money is spent in either case.

35mm has limitations too, which the industry has learnt to avoid over the years.

It can be a bit difficult to avoid brick walls and roof tiling, especially on a low budget film. 35mm film has some limitations, but moire isn't one of them. Surely, it's a case of if you can afford to use a camera that doesn't have an issue like this why use one that does?

You're absolutely right, of course.

What I've learnt so far, is that among all the systems, the best is either the Canon 600D or the Panasonic GH2. I would appreciate any feedback or comments regarding this. If I've made an error, please let me know.

Thanks,

Reading your chart, you seem to conveniently ignore quite a few obvious advantages of the F3 and AF100... like not turning to Jello instantly when moving the camera from side to side. Fader ND in all your different filter thread sizes (you aren't just using 1 zoom to shoot your feature, right?) adds up to a lot more. You've also failed to factor the cost of attaining equivalent high speed focal lengths on the m4/3 cameras, which believe me, is a fatal drawback. Not a lot of 14mm f1.2s out there.

If by "best" you mean "cheapest", then your conclusion seems to be correct.
Out of curiosity, what camera(s) do you own and which of these have you shot with?

PS. I think if you included the FS100, it would come up at the top once you factor the weaknesess of the DSLRs in.

Reading your chart, you seem to conveniently ignore quite a few obvious advantages of the F3 and AF100... like not turning to Jello instantly when moving the camera from side to side.

A DP on a feature film will be aware of this issue and will avoid it. In your opinion, does the F3 or the AF100 totally avoid this effect?

Fader ND in all your different filter thread sizes (you aren't just using 1 zoom to shoot your feature, right?) adds up to a lot more.

Lenses are not changed hourly on a feature film. And not all shots on a feature require an ND filter. With proper lighting, it is a redundant tool.

You've also failed to factor the cost of attaining equivalent high speed focal lengths on the m4/3 cameras, which believe me, is a fatal drawback. Not a lot of 14mm f1.2s out there.

That's an issue for the AF100, too, isn't it? The good thing about lenses is that they can be rented if required. Nobody said lenses were cheap. In fact, the lens I used in the chart is around $3,000.

If by "best" you mean "cheapest", then your conclusion seems to be correct.
I mean best. I don't plan on spending a few extra thousand dollars just for 8-bit 4:2:0 video (which is the baseline for this chart). Considering all the compromises a low budget indie makes on average, the extra gain in 'quality' is hardly discernible under practical conditions (nor by its audience, let me add).

Out of curiosity, what camera(s) do you own and which of these have you shot with?
I used to own the JVC111E and now I have a 550D with Nikon primes. But I've also shot with the 5D Mark II, a digibeta and a PD170.

PS. I think if you included the FS100, it would come up at the top once you factor the weaknesess of the DSLRs in.
At roughly the same cost as the AF100 and with a 24Mbps MPEG-4 codec, I didn't think it was worthy of a class on its own - it is represented in the chart by the AF100. I've also added the JVC111E to 'represent' small format CCD cameras like the EX3, HVX, etc.

The idea is to show newcomers to the indie world (whose questions pop up here everyday - as mine did when I started), that a 600D Rig will be good enough for their purposes. Now they can concentrate on the storytelling part of filmmaking. DPs can understand the issues with the HDSLR system and work around it. If one has more money to burn, I would recommend they burn it on good art design, costumes and makeup; plus on rehearsals and additional shooting and lighting time.

Regarding the "jello effect", if the story or the way the story is told can't avoid bringing about this effect, it's not up to the DP to avoid it, more they are using the wrong tool for the job. The F3 and AF100 may not totally avoid the jello effect, more reduce it to levels that aren't so significant.

Lenses can get changed on every shot on a feature, it really depends if the DP is using a zoom or prime lenses. If you're shooting a feature with DSLR cameras, because ot the limitations of the available stills zooms (not just the aperture). you're more likely to be using prime lenses.

You're ignoring a number of aspects to camera performance, like resolution, dynamic range and sensitivity, whilst being totally focused on 8 bit 4:2:0. You can't ignore the FS100 because you've got the AF100, because in a number of aspects key to a feature film it out performs the AF100. Nor can you lump the 1/2" sensor EX3 with the JVC 111.

The DP should be working towards a higher level than what an audience perceives.

Regarding the "jello effect", if the story or the way the story is told can't avoid bringing about this effect, it's not up to the DP to avoid it, more they are using the wrong tool for the job. The F3 and AF100 may not totally avoid the jello effect, more reduce it to levels that aren't so significant.

It can be avoided. Filmmakers have worked around camera and technological issues for a 100 years, and this has resulted in aesthetic innovations. In simple words - just tell the story differently.

Lenses can get changed on every shot on a feature, it really depends if the DP is using a zoom or prime lenses. If you're shooting a feature with DSLR cameras, because ot the limitations of the available stills zooms (not just the aperture). you're more likely to be using prime lenses.

It's not a perfect world, I agree. How much time does it take to screw on an ND filter? And how many shots will need it?

You're ignoring a number of aspects to camera performance, like resolution, dynamic range and sensitivity, whilst being totally focused on 8 bit 4:2:0.

The perceived resolution of all the systems I have compared should be about equal on the silver screen.

Dynamic range is only an issue for those unprepared or who are shooting under tough conditions. A little more dynamic range for the folks who do so are not going to make their footage any better. It is far more productive to control DR with lighting, design and planning.

You can't ignore the FS100 because you've got the AF100, because in a number of aspects key to a feature film it out performs the AF100. Nor can you lump the 1/2" sensor EX3 with the JVC 111.

Obviously each system is different, but these differences were irrelevant to the comparisons or the point I was making.

The DP should be working towards a higher level than what an audience perceives.

I would love to see 'higher level' filmmaking on a feature that has a budget of less than $100,000. I can't think of any, really. Even if there were, it would be a less than a handful.

Most new filmmakers focus on the wrong things, unfortunately. Please don't consider this chart to be for professional use. It isn't.

Err... so you tell the director to tell the story differently?

I think you're ignoring many of the decisions that DPs have to make and reducing it to just using the cost factor, but bear in mind on a larger screen the flaws tend to become more noticeable. In the end, by using a better dynamic range and sensitivity, you could reduce your lighting costs .

I think there are many DP who do amazing thing on a very low budget. Although, by the time you kit up a DSLR for a feature, the costs aren't that far away from an AF100 or FS100 and you don't have the disadvantages of the DSLR. If you can't afford either of these cameras, that another matter, but you don't need charts to justify your choice, you really don't have any other option.

Obviously each system is different, but these differences were irrelevant to the comparisons or the point I was making.


I have no axe to grind here as I use both 550D and real camcorders, but it does seem that the comparison has been prepared to justify an existing point of view rather than analyse the differences between major camera options. As can be seen from the responses above, available equipment has been excluded and issues with the kit that was included have been glossed over.

Steve

Err... so you tell the director to tell the story differently?

In my case, I am the director. :) If it is critically important to shoot in jelly-cam mode, then I don't see any better format than 16mm film (assuming 35mm film is out of budget). I don't see the F3 successfully shooting the Blair Witch Project either. Maybe a 3-CCD camera, but definitely not a CMOS.

I think you're ignoring many of the decisions that DPs have to make and reducing it to just using the cost factor, but bear in mind on a larger screen the flaws tend to become more noticeable. In the end, by using a better dynamic range and sensitivity, you could reduce your lighting costs .

Dynamic range is important. However, the differences in DR comparing an HDSLR to the F3 isn't that great to cover up bad lighting. Just experience speaking. One can screw up even an 18-stop DR with a poorly planned and executed shot.

I have no axe to grind here as I use both 550D and real camcorders, but it does seem that the comparison has been prepared to justify an existing point of view rather than analyse the differences between major camera options. As can be seen from the responses above, available equipment has been excluded and issues with the kit that was included have been glossed over.

Steve

Actually Steve, I started out by favoring the AF100 and the FS100, believe it or not! My friend is planning on investing in the AF100 for professional video use (not features), and I have been following this system for a couple of months now. I used the JVC111E to shoot my first feature. I bought my 550D for photography.

I realized, for the low budget filmmaker, it wouldn't help at all. Every other camera in the list offers a very slight improvement in the video signal at a disproportionate cost increase.

Even the AF100, the FS100 or the F3 are nowhere near the capabilities of a Red Epic, an Alexa or the Cinealta. They have weaknesses just like every other system. In the case of HDSLRs, the weaknesses are not crippling. It's actually good enough for most independent films.

Dynamic range is important. However, the differences in DR comparing an HDSLR to the F3 isn't that great to cover up bad lighting. Just experience speaking. One can screw up even an 18-stop DR with a poorly planned and executed shot.

People tend to use the higher dynamic range because the hiighlights tend not to clip so badly.

Yes, the 80% of performance is relatively cheap to achieve, the extra percentage points cost a lot more, You're comparing the recorded signal, but not taking in the compromise system that the 60D uses for extracting a video signal from the stills sensor. I've heard people comparing it favourably to the the 7D, but this is the first time I've heard it suggested as a better option to the F3.

"The Blair Witch Project" was supposed to have been shot with the film school cameras that the students were using, so they could've filmed with a mobile phone or a F3

Sareesh, you are making a lot of definitive statements that are going off mark, I think. If you are talking about a $100,000 feature, chances are that unless you are fortunate enough to get very skilled people working for you for essentially no money, there will not be enough time, gear and crew to be able to perform the kind of workarounds you are suggesting to some of the issues presented by these cameras. Take a typical day exterior situation. Shooting closeups all day is relatively easy: it doesn't take excessive gear or difficulty to control the sun even at its worse in mid-day (although it does take a little bit of skill to produce natural looking closeups under artificial conditions). Once you move to wider shots, controlling contrast becomes a more complicated task. On my larger jobs, I think nothing of asking for a 20x20 ultrabounce or bleached muslin, but on a feature that size, I'd surely downgrade it in size due to limited personnel (and likely experience levels) to ensure that it is rigged safely. With a higher dynamic range camera like the F3 in S-log mode, I may not even need it all, and that is a significant consideration. For a job that has a lot of exteriors, one may be able to move that much faster with better results. And what's this about ND's being redundant with proper lighting? They are still a basic and essential tool for day exteriors, even more so as camera sensors become more sensitive. No getting around that one.

One other thing about working around the limitations of DSLR moire: I've been doing just that for the past eighteen months and I'm just about done with it. To have to schedule camera/wardrobe tests for every piece of clothing on every person that will appear in a project is too time-consuming and impractical (you have to check it at multiple focal lengths as moire may only appear at a specific distance) and we constantly get burned. Same thing with set design. It's extremely hard to predict what will be troublesome other than the most obvious patterns. Then there are situations where moire pops out on people's hair, or even eyebrows--yes, there are some post production chroma fixes available but as I've learned, very often "we'll fix it in post" means "we'll never actually get around to it"

Now, a common theme in all of this is what size and experience level crew you can get on a micro-budget feature and that is something that may be a variable depending on location. I suspect things are quite different in India than they are here and this may be the factor that is influencing many of the statements you have made that don't quite gel for me.

Not to continue the dogpile but...

You've also failed to factor the cost of attaining equivalent high speed focal lengths on the m4/3 cameras, which believe me, is a fatal drawback. Not a lot of 14mm f1.2s out there.

That's an issue for the AF100, too, isn't it? The good thing about lenses is that they can be rented if required. Nobody said lenses were cheap. In fact, the lens I used in the chart is around $3,000.

When I said m4/3 cameras, that includes the AF100.
Good lenses aren't cheap, but a useful range of fast/quality glass for the m4/3 cameras is difficult and expensive enough that it would probably eliminate them from my list of "low budget feature cinema" cameras. (having said that, I own an AF100, as well as many DSLRs)

Also, I'm not sure how you "using" a $3000 lens in a text based chart is relevant, but it seems contradictory to me that you'd put $3000 into a lens that's only fractionally better than a $100 Nikon 50mm 1.4, while in the paragraph below telling people that the extra gains in quality is not discernable by the audience are not worth the money (which I agree with). I'm just sayin....


If by "best" you mean "cheapest", then your conclusion seems to be correct.

I mean best. I don't plan on spending a few extra thousand dollars just for 8-bit 4:2:0 video (which is the baseline for this chart). Considering all the compromises a low budget indie makes on average, the extra gain in 'quality' is hardly discernible under practical conditions (nor by its audience, let me add).

So you don't mean "best" but "best on a no-budget feature." I'd support your conclusion of the 600D there.

I've heard people comparing it favourably to the the 7D, but this is the first time I've heard it suggested as a better option to the F3.

I never said it was better than the F3. In my chart, the F3 stands heads and shoulders above every other camera easily.

"The Blair Witch Project" was supposed to have been shot with the film school cameras that the students were using, so they could've filmed with a mobile phone or a F3

They couldn't have shot that film with a CMOS sensor (even the F3's) due to the jello-effect and other artifacts that would have come about in their way of shooting. They did use one digital camera, and it had a CCD sensor.

Sareesh, you are making a lot of definitive statements that are going off mark, I think. If you are talking about a $100,000 feature, chances are that unless you are fortunate enough to get very skilled people working for you for essentially no money, there will not be enough time, gear and crew to be able to perform the kind of workarounds you are suggesting to some of the issues presented by these cameras.

Isn't that the case with any project? Without a decent crew nothing can be accomplished anyway. Nobody said low budget filmmaking was easy, or that it didn't entail making many compromises and sacrifices.

With a higher dynamic range camera like the F3 in S-log mode, I may not even need it all, and that is a significant consideration.

F3 with the S-log upgrade is beyond the reach of most people (and out of the budget I was considering). Also, the hardware required on set to read that data means extra crew and more time. If I really had to shell out that much, I'd rather shoot in 16mm.

And what's this about ND's being redundant with proper lighting? They are still a basic and essential tool for day exteriors, even more so as camera sensors become more sensitive. No getting around that one.

A well-planned feature won't need more than one ND filter at most. It isn't hard or time consuming to screw one on, and it is not the case that they are permanently screwed on a lens anyway. Plus, the rigs I have mentioned have matte boxes for this specific purpose.

Also, it's funny how people always use the ND filter argument. Are the ND filter options (2 on the F3 and 3 on the AF100) exactly what will be needed on a particular shoot? If so, why can't manufacturers agree on the best stops for them? These in-built ND filters are really great when shooting documentaries or ENG work, but on a feature, the DP should know better.

One other thing about working around the limitations of DSLR moire: I've been doing just that for the past eighteen months and I'm just about done with it.

A little bit of moire is an acceptable risk. Like Hitchcock said: If the story and characters are interesting enough, nobody is going to notice the crew member in a white coat in the background. I can understand how on big budgets moire is unacceptable, but the low budget filmmaker has fewer choices. Even the biggest blockbusters goof up.

Now, a common theme in all of this is what size and experience level crew you can get on a micro-budget feature and that is something that may be a variable depending on location. I suspect things are quite different in India than they are here and this may be the factor that is influencing many of the statements you have made that don't quite gel for me.

I have worked with American crews in India, too. A good, experienced crew is a godsend anywhere. In fact, without a good crew, it is better to not start a project. Actually, I haven't made any statements with regards to crew, only to equipment.

I can add one thing though - lighting in India is much cheaper than in the US. I had a mini lighting and grip truck and a generator for around $80 dollars a day (in 2008). I used 2 4K HMIs, 5 1K Babys, a few 1K Ultras, 20x20 & 10x10 silks, plus dolly with track, stands, etc. It came with eight crew members (grips, one electrician and driver) for $10 each per 8-hour shift. Not bad, eh?

Also, I'm not sure how you "using" a $3000 lens in a text based chart is relevant, but it seems contradictory to me that you'd put $3000 into a lens that's only fractionally better than a $100 Nikon 50mm 1.4, while in the paragraph below telling people that the extra gains in quality is not discernable by the audience are not worth the money (which I agree with). I'm just sayin....

I'm not an expert on lenses. I chose the F-mount because it is the most universal mount (that can be adapted to almost every camera made). I use Nikon primes with my 550D. I chose Zeiss so that nobody would complain! Oh well...


So you don't mean "best" but "best on a no-budget feature." I'd support your conclusion of the 600D there.

That's all I've meant all along. For a feature, this is what I'd do:

$0 to $100,000 - The 600D - Buy (if possible buy two bodies). Rent the lenses unless the costs are the same. Avoid major post processing. Get the best stereo sound mix possible, but keep options open for a Dolby 5.1. 99.9% of these films will not see a theatrical release or break even.

$100,000 to $1,000,000 - Rent a RED ONE or shoot in 16mm (the latter if less post processing is required). Best possible theatrical and stereo sound mix. 99% of these films will not see a theatrical release, but can make money off television and video.

$1,000,000+ - Shoot 35mm (or risk not getting distributed) or RED ALEXA (for major post processing) - renting only. Without a theatrical release, most of these ventures are doomed.

At a $100,000 budget I wouldn't use a 60D, as Charles points out moire is a real issue. You mightn't even notice the moire when you're shooting, but you can get stung with it during post The FS100 (or AF100) fits into this budget, you don't have the the same problems and you can always sell the camera afterwards or just rent.

All 8 bit 4:2:0 isn't equal, even using DVCam the pictures from a DSR 500 or DSR 450 are better than those from a PD150.

BTW There are $100,000 features that have been shot on 35mm film. You can get theatrical distribution on a film shot with a RED ONE so the $1M limitation doesn't apply, a number of high budget films have been shot with it. The Alexa is made by Arri and I suspect RED would argue that for big screen the RED ONE offers better resolution. There's no set path, especially at these low budgets ($1M is still low budget for a feature film).

BTW There are $100,000 features that have been shot on 35mm film. .... There's no set path, especially at these low budgets ($1M is still low budget for a feature film).

You're absolutely right. I should have been clearer. A low budget indie ($0 to $30,000) has a higher percentage going towards its camera department than a well-balanced feature would have. Sometimes it is higher than 50% (as the case was with my feature).

Assuming the same movie had two budgets - one at 100K and the other at a 1 million - one cannot drastically reduce the expenses going into makeup, costumes, set design, etc, without losing production values. Yet, low budget filmmakers are always under pressure to do this. In the olden days, cameras, too, couldn't be compromised on - you either shot in 16mm or 35mm. If you couldn't afford 16mm, you couldn't shoot a movie for theatrical distribution. In today's age, it's possible to shoot a feature on a 600D and if one lights within the dynamic range of the camera, the result will be acceptable. So the proportionate percentage going to the camera department can be reduced. One can also factor in renting cheaper and more efficient units like LEDs (but I don't know much about that so I'll stop here).

I was just grossly generalizing in that last post. I believe no rules can be set since there are too many variables involved. Plus, I can't wait to get my hands on an AF100!

It's possible to shoot a feature on many current cameras, its more if they're the best choice for the job and if they're going to give problems that need to be "sorted out in post". Much depends on your budget and the proportion that's going on the camera, also you may find it's better to rent than to buy.

Yes, I agree, except for DSLRs, every other camera system should be rented. There are some great deals out there.

Yes, I agree, except for DSLRs, every other camera system should be rented.

I think a lot of the perceived animosity here is because of BLANKET statements like this one.

Rental versus purchase should be weighed against the ACTUAL financials.

An average rental is usually 3 - 5% of value per day on large capitalization items like cameras and usually higher on items like cards and such.

Most rental houses will give you a break on multi day rentals (1.5x day rate for a weekend, 3.5x day rate for a week).

BUT... if your shooting schedule extends past the "break even" sweet spot, you should consider buying and reselling afterward.

For example:

The Indie feature I lensed some years ago spanned a year of shooting. My Sony PD150 (again, this was YEARS ago...) kit ALL IN cost me $8000. Rentals for a weekend back then would have been around $250 a day, so even with weekend rates it would have cost $400 (if we had rented instead of using a camera I already owned...) each weekend we took the camera out. MINIMUM. 10 shooting weekends over the course of the year equals $4000. Would we have been further ahead to buy an $8000 kit and sell it one year later for half price? Probably... AND had use of the camera for other stuff in the interim, possibly to help further offset purchase price.

One simply CAN'T make a blanket statement around which is better, buying or renting, without first "running the numbers".

I think a lot of the perceived animosity here is because of BLANKET statements like this one.


:) I agree with you - My views are opinionated. I'm hoping by reading different points of view a newcomer might benefit from our combined wisdom.


BUT... if your shooting schedule extends past the "break even" sweet spot, you should consider buying and reselling afterward.

For example:

The Indie feature I lensed some years ago spanned a year of shooting. My Sony PD150 (again, this was YEARS ago...) kit ALL IN cost me $8000. Rentals for a weekend back then would have been around $250 a day, so even with weekend rates it would have cost $400 (if we had rented instead of using a camera I already owned...) each weekend we took the camera out. MINIMUM. 10 shooting weekends over the course of the year equals $4000. Would we have been further ahead to buy an $8000 kit and sell it one year later for half price? Probably... AND had use of the camera for other stuff in the interim, possibly to help further offset purchase price.


I had a similar issue with my feature. I bought a JVC 111E camera with accessories, plus a sound 'system', and a laptop - the whole thing cost me around $10,000. The cost of renting a similar system (the only option was a Z1 - the XL-H1 and the HVX200 were unavailable in India) was around $6,000 (for the period I needed it). It seemed like common sense at the time to buy the camera, use it and then rent it out. I figured even if I didn't rent it out, I could sell it for around $6,000. After I completed my movie, I realized there was no demand for the camera in India (This is Sony land) either for rentals or for resale. Finally, I managed to sell it this year for around $2,500 (not including the laptop and the sound system). My bad, of course.

One simply CAN'T make a blanket statement around which is better, buying or renting, without first "running the numbers".

True. I did run the numbers, and for every other system excepting an HDSLR, I found it was cheaper to rent for a period of up to 30 days (the typical testing and shooting period of an indie feature).

For HDSLRs, I realized it was not worth it to rent simply because owning a DSLR has other benefits - like shooting stills - for storyboards, for artwork, for production stills, for casting, to shoot the making of, and so on. I have realized (being a director, not a DP) that having a DSLR just made me visualize better, and I'm improving every day with the 550D.

One thing the renting vs. owning arguement hasn't covered is the tax benefits of renting over purchasing. In many cases, the cost of renting can be effectively zero (depending on the laws in your country of course). This should be discussed with your accountant.

For HDSLRs, I realized it was not worth it to rent simply because owning a DSLR has other benefits - like shooting stills - for storyboards, for artwork, for production stills, for casting, to shoot the making of, and so on. I have realized (being a director, not a DP) that having a DSLR just made me visualize better, and I'm improving every day with the 550D.

Ah ha! I am guessing that you are a 'HDSLR guy'. I personally can't stand the things for
shooting video. I'd much rather have an FS 100 or AF 100 (and I too admit I am biased,
I own an FS 100). However, that being said....

would it not be true to say that owning an FS 100 or AF 100 or really
any of these cameras has other benefits as well?. I have actually used my
FS 100 to print off stills....smaller ones true...5x7's....and I will
say, that they are as close to HDSLR 5x7 stills as HDSLR video is to
FS 100 video :-)

But to each his own :-) I personally think the biggest
factor in the HDSLR craze is price. There are a LOT more people willing
to spend 1-2k on a camera than 5-6k. There is always a law of 'diminishing
returns' on these things. So a 550d gets you 85% of the way to a FS 100
(and is much cheaper). You chose a 550d because of that. To me, the extra
15% is easily worth the extra money (but I run a BUSINESS doing this, so
it's not a hobby and I don't make films 'on weekends for fun'. Not saying
you do, or disparaging those who do, but this is my ONLY source of income
so I tend to spend a little more on it than many do probably....but not as
much as some who have 'higher profile' clients. Kind of the typical small
town guy who makes corporate films and TV commercials, and weddings and so on.)

However, the FS-100 might get you 85% of the way to an F3. Why didn't I just
buy that then since I value quality? Simple, budget! The clients I currently
have, don't have that kind of budget! To me, there is a lesson here.
When looking at a camera that you are actually going to buy, the
very FIRST thing you want to look at, is not technical specs.....but
your BUDGET! Once you have that nailed down, you can figure out what
some of the best cameras in your budget range are.....and then compare
them and see what works best for you. It's pointless looking at
65K cameras if you only have 10k to spend. It's silly to look
at 6k cameras if you only have 2k to spend. Now I know that for
many, renting is an option. However, for those of us who live outside
the urban centers, and have no rental houses, having a camera on hand
can mean the difference between getting the job, and getting passed over.
It would take at least two or three days for any rental gear to get to
me in Alaska, so I don't really ever look at renting, unless it is
a very high end job with at least a weeks notice.

Ah ha! I am guessing that you are a 'HDSLR guy'. I personally can't stand the things for
shooting video. I'd much rather have an FS 100 or AF 100 (and I too admit I am biased,
I own an FS 100).

Don't get me wrong, Gabe - I'd rather shooting anything but HDSLRs too...but not on a low budget indie feature.

would it not be true to say that owning an FS 100 or AF 100 or really
any of these cameras has other benefits as well?. I have actually used my
FS 100 to print off stills....smaller ones true...5x7's....and I will
say, that they are as close to HDSLR 5x7 stills as HDSLR video is to
FS 100 video :-)

And a 5D Mark II can't make a good still image?

You chose a 550d because of that.
If you mean my own personal choice, then no, I bought the 550D for photography exclusively.
If you mean from the chart, then, yes, it was chosen comparing its advantages to its costs, and then coming to the conclusion that it was indeed 'good enough' for low budget indie features.

To me, the extra
15% is easily worth the extra money (but I run a BUSINESS doing this

For stuff other than low budget indies, like in your line of work, it would be pointless to shoot with DSLRs when you have the choice of an AF100 or FS100. In 2007, when I was hunting for a prosumer camera for my first feature, the only option was HDV, and I chose one which gave me the best signal, lens and form factor within my budget (excepting the XL-H1, which was out of my price range). I don't regret it.

the very FIRST thing you want to look at, is not technical specs.....but
your BUDGET! Once you have that nailed down, you can figure out what
some of the best cameras in your budget range are.....and then compare
them and see what works best for you.

Experience teaches one well, doesn't it? When I started out, I didn't have many people to ask, here in India. I have learnt that, for features at least, it's better to budget every non-technical thing first and then spend the remainder on whatever fits the budget. But a newcomer doesn't 'get' these things. I certainly didn't.

It would take at least two or three days for any rental gear to get to
me in Alaska, so I don't really ever look at renting, unless it is
a very high end job with at least a weeks notice.

You are right. The guy who bought my JVC is a wedding filmmaker. I never made a cent out of my camera. But he is earning and raising a family from it. That was a strong lesson for me.

Yeah, the 5D Mark II can make an absolutely AWESOME still. Better than
a video camera by far! My point was kind of....that if you use a still
camera (which is optimized for stills) as a video camera....it is compromised
for motion pictures. And that if I use a FS 100 (which is optimized for motion)
as a still camera....it is compromised for stills. Now I can print off pictures
at 5x7 size, that would look close to 5x7's from a 5D Mark II......but with a
5D Mark II, you are NOT limited to 5x7! With a FS 100, you can't go much bigger
or you start losing quality. So, because the FS 100 is not optimized for stills,
it compromises the quality of the stills it can shoot. In a like manner, the 5D,
has compromises with it's motion. In both cases, If you don't care/can work around
it, it's no big deal. If you do care/can't work around it, it is a big deal! Maybe
you need a still bigger than 5x7! Better not chose the FS 100! Likewise, if you need
a camera that doesn't line skip causing aliasing and moire, the 5d would not be a great
choice.

Now, I'm sure you already know all this. In fact, I think you were kind
of making the same point I was. HDSLR's are great, because of their
cost/performance ratio. They may not be quite up to the large sensor
video camera quality, but they get close for much less money. So,
again, look at your budget. If you can't swing the money for a
'proper' video camera, you can get by with a HDSLR, especially if
you are a resourceful type! And honestly, your 'motion picture'
will probably look very very good.

As for learning, I still am doing it, and sometimes feel like I don't
know much at all. The more I learn, the more of the vast world of
'motion picture making' I glimpse, and realize I don't know much at
all compared to so many people. I guess we all just try to do our
best and get better every day.