In your list of considerations you left out rental availability. Very important for the things you use so seldom that buying is not sensible, and when you need a substitute because yours is in the shop.
Funny, I have been looking at mixers and have about 90% decided upon the Yamaha too, although apparently a lot lower spec'd model than you. I have a couple of obsolete portable stereo cassette decks that I want to use them for field recording. Next up are microphones, and here I could use some advice, I have a couple of Nady's whose main virtual is that they were essentially free with the cables I needed, and whose main fault is their -76db sensitivity. I am thinking I would eventually want to have a pair of dynamic omnidirectionals (EV 635a?), a pair of condenser cardioids for each deck, and a couple of shotgun mics. Does that seem right? I also find it somewhat ironic that adapters to mount mics on my photographic stands are rather expensive, but not quite as expensive (by a couple of bucks) as buying mic stands. -graywolf Cotty wrote: > Hi Bill, this is rather long - get yourself a stiff drink before you read.... > > I discombobulated > >>> Sure, the price point will be important, but to business buyers, >>> price is less of an issue. >>> > > Bill replied > > >> I keep hearing this, but my experience in the world of professional >> photography is that it is wrong. >> There are some pro boys out there who don't need to justify equipment cost, >> but they are pretty rare. >> Most pros have a harder time justifying equipment purchases than amateurs. > > Well, I wonder if I am considering the right terminology here. > Dictionary.com describes 'justify' as: > > 1. to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right: 'The > end does not always justify the means.' > 2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: 'Don't try to > justify his rudeness.' > > (amongst others) > > I'm trying honestly not to be patronising here - in fact I'm sort of > doing a bit of soul-searching in my own justifications and processes > over the past few months, a but of therapy for myself, so stay with me.... > > My point is that it's not just about equipment cost - it's about several > other things. For example, if you are making a living at something [like > photography], then you have choices to make with regard to your > equipment outlay based on (in no particular order) cost, reliability, > previous experience, recommendation, personal research, access to repair/ > servicing, availability, result quality, and I dare say some others that > I can't think of at eight-thirty am on a day off work. > > So as I perceive it, cost is only a small part of the whole > justification thing. > > Necessarily, I can speak from experience here. As I have been putting > together my own broadcast TV gear in the setting up of my freelance > business, I have had to make many decisions on equipment outlay using > the above criteria. I'm not exactly flush with money - there is a > balance to make between having enough to live on personally, and having > the right tools for the job. However, one or two cases, cost was not > considered. This was mainly (but not wholly) because there were no > alternatives. Viz: > > I had to buy a camera. The format I need to use (as defined in a > contract I was successful in acquiring) is DVCam which is made by Sony. > So I had to buy a Sony camera - and I reasoned that it had to be new > instead of used because I needed the support in case it went wrong. > Hence where to buy became the most important factor right away. > > I chose a dealer (broadcast TV dealer for all makes, not just Sony) > based on the high recommendation of a couple of well-respected > freelancers in the game for a long time. Also because I knew the bloke > running the company from years ago, and their reputation is good, with > in-house technical repair facilities where appropriate. Once that > decision was made, it was a case of one-stop-shop. > > I researched everything I could and made my equipment choices based on > my own experience, and by handling where possible. The camera was pre- > determined, but the lens? The practical choice was Canon or Fujinon. I > had mixed recommendations, so relied on my own experience with Canon in > the past, which was very good. Also, they had a lens in the range I > wanted (6mm to 78mm with 2X extender) at a price which was in budget > (£4800). I visited a colleague to handle the earlier incarnation of this > lens (6.5mm-78mm) and it seemed okay, but it was well-used. Luckily my > lens was in better shape new :-) The fact that two other colleagues have > since purchased the same lens as an upgrade to their collection made me > feel better. Costing therefore was a secondary consideration, as the > nearest Fuji example was cheaper by several hundred quid. > > Other examples: > > Audio kit: I've always used Sennheiser in the past through gear > allocated to me by my previous employer, and it was bulletproof. The > obvious choice for my camera would have been Sony, but I stayed with > Sennheiser, which was more expensive by about 10%, and more difficult to > set up - needed a visit to technos to match frequencies of two existing > transmitters I have. Cost here was secondary. > > Lighting: many makes on the market. I went with Arri and spent £750 on > three redheads and stands (2X800w and a 650w fresnel lamp, all tungsten > as is standard for a small TV kit). Plenty of competition here, many > much cheaper. Arri has a good reputation. Cost, what cost? > > Ancillaries/others: Tripod was a Sachtler carbon-fibre sticks and 7- > stage fluid head. Identical to what I used on staff. This I purchased > used (eBay!) at less than half price (£1275) because my budget demanded > it. I would much rather go with experience here, and although I might > have been able to buy a new Vinten model at only 20% more, now cost was > much more of an issue. Here I go with reputation and my own experience, > but cost took precedence - so I go used, and will update to new when I > can afford it a couple of years down the line. > > Setting up on-board editing: now we're getting stingy. I'm feeling the > pinch. Cost is a major issue, and here's what I need: top of the line > laptop, associated control surface/audio mixer, DVCam VTR deck, video > and audio monitors, power inverter to run it in the truck, associated > bits and bobs. > > My own personal feeling is that I go Mac, because I know Macs, and if it > falls over out on location, I can probably bring it back up without > reading a manual, as I would with a PC. However, the TV station uses > Avid Newscutter (editing software) on PC, and also some portable PC > setups. So journalists who are trained in it could use my setup, making > it more saleable. However, I could run Avid DV on Mac (which is very > similar) or indeed Newscutter on a Mac booted into Windows (uncharted > territory). However, I want to offer my skills as an editor (potentially > more money) rather than provide a workstation for hacks, and I use Final > Cut Pro which is Mac only. I'll go with the Mac option, as I'm happier > with it. So, experience here, cost last. New Mac portable with max RAM > and a couple of external hard drives, and a full copy of FCP, so looking > at the best part of £4000 or so. > > I can skimp back on the other things. The mixer is either Mackie or > Yamaha, and I chose Yamaha because an audio engineer for a touring band > told me Mackie was rubbish (!), but new it's the best part of £1000. So > used from an eBayer, half price. Got it, it's great and works well, > built like a tank. Pleased. DVCam VTR, choice of three Sony at £1500, > £2500, and nearly £4000. The spec I would like is mid to high range, but > have to settle for low for now, and again, used from a eBayer for £580. > So cost was crucial here, but I did not drop down in quality. I still > acquired the reputed best in the field. > > > Okay, enough personal example. I'll be pushing the 10k email limit! > > How would this translate through to a stills person embarking on setting > up a digital stills studio? What justifications do you think that person > would use in kit choice? Chances are they already work in such > environments, and so will go with similar criteria in personal > experience and recommendation. They will make final choices, but I > submit to you sir, that cost - where considered - will only be a small > part of the justification. > > I rest my arse, er case. > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
