Why would the BMCC cost you $6500? Do you have any MFT glass? This camera is really easy to shoot handheld with a rig IMO. You just have to follow the normal rules of a film camera.

If you're asking if it's worth the money, all I have to say is wait till you get in post. Then the money slips away. Period.

I think it cost me $3000 to go from my GH2 cameras to my BMCC but I went with the mft version. You can shoot all prores and still be light years ahead of the GH cameras.

And what are you doing about power?

Add the 12mm sir magic and some forms of long lens like a 85mm Samyang or a long legacy lens and you have an amazing bmcc/gh3 set up. Rolling shutter is only as bad as you let it be... No worse then a dslr in fact I find it less then a 7d. You will not regret your decision and if you going pro res route Kingston and or San disk ssds in 120gb and 240gb are silly cheap for the price to data ratio

I'll be in dissonance here, but in your place I'll choose to use tools you know good already. Get more skill shooting with rigs, steadicams in similar to your film set restrictions instead. And focus on more important stuff.

Yep, you'll have less DR, and some restrictions in grading, but it is not super important really.

why don't you rent one. Will be around 50 Euro/day and most of them charge only 4 days/week. Of course, depends on how long production you have.

I made the investment in a BMCC, after having shot exclusively with the GH2 for a few years. I'm pleased I did, but this is the minimum I found necessary:

• Cage for BMCC for mounting stuff
• Rails for matte box
• Matte box
• External battery (I use Switronix)
• SDI to HDMI converter
• HDMI monitor (I already had Zacuto EVF)
• Bigger tripod (for all weight of extra stuff)
• 2 x SanDisk 480 GB SSD
• SSD adapter
• Bigger Mac system for editing raw

If you don't intend to buy all this, then just use GH3, and invest in stuff that will improve quality of the movie, such as set design, better costumes, great makeup, and most of all, LIGHTING.

Thanks everyone for there input

I find me quoting Robert Rodriguez often. "Every film maker has 20 bad movies in them. Best thing you can do is get them out of you." (Or something like that.)

Every week I see people spend big money on average or terrible films. They truly think its their tools. Find a story. Plan it out. Actors. Sets. Angles. Props. Basic sound. Shoot it. Cut it. Mix it. Publish it. Do it again. Trust me. Once you've done that about five times, you will be shocked how much your product has improved, with no difference in gear. You will soon find people more talented and experienced than you in certain specialties, doing whatever they can to help you, and often bringing their own better gear than you can afford.

Plan. Shoot. Edit. Mix. Distribute.

Every project I've ever worked on (40 years) I've had regrets and limitations. They are my best teachers. Do something right now with what you have, even if its just a cell phone camera. Because the most important lessons you learn, and skills you will build, are from the many mistakes you will make when working with people. Not planning. Not communicating. Not motivating. Make your human and creative mistakes for free, and spend your first money on pizza for your "crew" that helps you. You will be surprised how they will support you and your vision, even on a cell phone.

Film making is not about gear. It's about vision, communicating that vision, team building, and motivating, motivating, motivating. Make those mistakes now for free, and learn from your human mistakes. Soon you will be shooting with the benefit of others highly focused talents and others money. And that's where the real fun begins.

You're asking an impossible question, because unless you know exactly what you're going to do with the money saved, and how exactly that will improve the film's prospects or make it better, who can answer?

Consider also that a $200,000 film usually doesn't have any better chance than a $20,000 one: the money difference isn't enough to be decisive in the movie business. People don't get 10x better production value or 10x better performances or 10x better script for $200,000. They just make a bigger disaster.

However, for your own satisfaction -- audiences don't care -- you may find the footage is more relightable (and salvageable) in post, with the BMCC. What that's worth only you can decide.

I'm with VK. Use the tools you know and are skilled with. A new camera will come with new problems that you don't want to discover on the set.

Yesterday I was in a color grading suite finishing a short film I make on my GH2 and FD lenses. It looks beautiful. Probably better than my first two feature films in distribution. So if you want to be REALLY contrarian, my advice would be to sell your GH3, buy a GH2 off eBay and put all that extra money toward a good DP, gaffer, PD, locations, actors, whatever. Once the camera is adequate, that's the stuff that really counts.

invest on production values rather than a new camera, just find a style that suits you with the gh3 (learning the limitations), a style that is coherent with the story you are telling, if you find a way to do this then you are gaining more by investing in the art of the movie rather than raw, 2.5k ain´t that different than 1080p, but a well crafted set is a lot diferent than a cheaper one, and on the normal spectator it would have a much bigger impact... more dynamic range and more color depth doesn´t improve the universe that you want to create.

Audio is king!!

@Vitaliy_Kiselev What steadi-cam rig you like best for indicated budget?