Best 16 mm Camera for shooting action shots outdoors

[George Hill]

I am looking to get into 16mm for making ski films and other outdoor content. I am having trouble deciding what camera to get, whether or not I need a reflex camera etc etc. 

what I want:

easy to load new film on the go

sturdy portable design

quick to set up new shots, I will not be able to use a tape measure for focus

 

what I don’t need

lots of different lenses

performance in low light or up close, I will be shooting from a distance on sunny days

very long shots, so I was thinking a wind up camera would work

 

Obviously the nice reflex bolexes look great but they are expensive, and I was thinking since I will be mostly filming things that are far away I might not have to worry about focus so much? So could I get a cheaper non reflex camera?

Thanks !

 

[Don H Marks]

Bolex can be a good choice if you don't have much experience with 16mm because, at least in the old days, everyone knew how to use it, so getting on-line help here, or on youtube will be easier. 

If you are buying a Bolex to own off e-bay, that is a whole kettle of fish. Your best results might come from renting a known working camera. 

Even on this forum, someone that has paid for a professoinal service of a Bolex probably will price it to get that money back. 

A friend of mine from college has a fund that supports independent films in the $200k range, so there must be some way that an aspiring film maker might be able to secure a $1000 camera from a patron. 

Do you have a resume that would impress an patron or investor?

If you do take your chances on ebay you might wind up making a blurry, under-cranked 'experimetal' film with jumpy frames, light leaks and scratches, when you did not intend to. 

I love my Bolex cameras, but I make 'experimental' films on purpose. 

 

 

Edited March 9 by Don H Marks

[Simon Wyss]

Eumig C 16

[Dom Jaeger]

If money is tight you could get a non-reflex Bolex with a reflex (dogleg) zoom. These were made back in the 50s and 60s, so pretty vintage, but the image can be surprisingly ok. Angenieux and Som Berthiot both made them. Otherwise, if you shoot at a very deep stop, say f/11 or f/16, you can probably get away with a non-reflex camera and a normal zoom or telephoto, and just estimate the distance and hope the depth of field covers. You can also check focus between shots on a non-reflex Bolex.

Bolexes are wonderful cameras, very durable and easy to load. It does pay to have it serviced or at least checked by a good technician, but that’s the case with any old movie camera. And at least there are a few Bolex techs still around (like me).

Spring motors have the advantage that you don’t need to worry about batteries, which is handy up a mountain. The downside is shots are limited to about 30 seconds at 24fps, and you can miss a shot because you need to wind the motor up each time. 

If you want an electric camera, the Arri 16S is very good, with a bright reflex viewfinder and good lens options. They are relatively affordable, given the quality. A Canon Scoopic is very simple to load and use, also with a bright reflex viewfinder and a pretty good fixed zoom, but it’s no match in quality for an Arriflex.

 

[Dom Jaeger]

If you decide to look for reflex zooms, don’t get the very early Som Berthiot dogleg zooms like the Pan Cinor 70, as the zoom viewfinder is only for framing not focussing. Get a Pan Cinor 85-2, or a dogleg Angenieux 9.5-95 or 12-120, which allow reflex focussing.

[Aapo Lettinen]

Arri16s or BolexH16rx or similar would be good. 100ft daylight spools would be optimal for the use. Bolex has cheaper lenses and arri has better viewfinder. 

If the camera does not need to be the absolutely cheapest one I would recommend getting reflex camera with good viewfinder. 

Something like Photo Sonics 1vn could be cool if 2R film and dogleg zoom and difficult to load mags can be tolerated. They were used as skydiving stunt cameras, mountaineering etc in the past and have internal heaters and everything. Can do slow mo up to 200fps with the dual claws but if converting to 1R film you would lose the high speeds so limits film choices. And relatively expensive, I could sell one for 3k with new electronics made for it if you absolutely must have one now when hearing about it 😁

[Robert Hart]

If you intend using the Bolex for an action cam, be mindful that if it becomes self-agile and clocks you in the face, it will bleed you. If you take it up in an aircraft, attach a stout lanyard on it to pull it up short of stretching your pilot senseless if things get exciting. Be sure to tie the lanyard off to something above and behind you and of short length that it does not foul the controls. By the time you increase focal length to 25mm it will be shaky. You can grip it top and bottom, right palm upwards and beneath with fingers forward so you can work the run button which faces forward. You can shape your arms into a fairly effective faux-steadicam posture for handholding but this will require holding away shooting blind with a very wide lens. and a primitive wire gunsight style aiming device. Some folk have recommended the lenses with their own eyepiece. Be aware that they may shove your eye clear through the back of your skull if you run into something. 

Edited March 9 by Robert Hart
error

[Tyler Purcell]

If you need the ability to get your focus, then you need reflex. People are recommending the dogleg reflex cameras, but sadly they aren't great and it'll be hard to find something that's been serviced. 

16mm isn't a "cost savings" format anymore, this ain't the 1980's. If you want to actually shoot material that comes out acceptable, you'll probably spend more servicing a low-cost lens and body, vs buying a better camera up front. 

I mean just 1 roll of 100ft film, raw stock, processing, prep/clean and 4k scan, will run you over $100 dollars. So if you're trying to save money on the body, do you actually have money to shoot anything? You have to think of that first, do the math on how much it costs to make movies and see if it's something you can even afford to begin with. 

There are a lot of good cameras in the under $1k range, but if you're running and gunning, without potentially a light meter, which is something I run into a lot, then your choices are limited. Where it's true, some Bolex cameras had a light meter, it was the Japanese cameras like the Canon Scoopic which cemented the integrated meter for prosumer cameras. Beaulieu R16 has a built in meter as well, but they're not as reliable as the Scoopic. The Scoopic is also a small camera, which is easy to load, has reflex viewfinder, has a decent integrated lens AND can do some high speed stuff as well. You can literally load it and with that one single device, go out and shoot without worrying about what lens you have attached or what exposure you're choosing. I don't know of another inexpensive system that works like that, with that sort of confidence in final image. Any of those other options like wind up Bolex'es with doglegs and such, none of that is a good option in the long run. You will be very disappointed. 

[Rhys Scarabosio]

Canon scoopic 

[George Hill]

18 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

If money is tight you could get a non-reflex Bolex with a reflex (dogleg) zoom. These were made back in the 50s and 60s, so pretty vintage, but the image can be surprisingly ok. Angenieux and Som Berthiot both made them. Otherwise, if you shoot at a very deep stop, say f/11 or f/16, you can probably get away with a non-reflex camera and a normal zoom or telephoto, and just estimate the distance and hope the depth of field covers. You can also check focus between shots on a non-reflex Bolex.

Bolexes are wonderful cameras, very durable and easy to load. It does pay to have it serviced or at least checked by a good technician, but that’s the case with any old movie camera. And at least there are a few Bolex techs still around (like me).

Spring motors have the advantage that you don’t need to worry about batteries, which is handy up a mountain. The downside is shots are limited to about 30 seconds at 24fps, and you can miss a shot because you need to wind the motor up each time. 

If you want an electric camera, the Arri 16S is very good, with a bright reflex viewfinder and good lens options. They are relatively affordable, given the quality. A Canon Scoopic is very simple to load and use, also with a bright reflex viewfinder and a pretty good fixed zoom, but it’s no match in quality for an Arriflex.

 

One of my favorite ski films was shot on the arri 16s, how different is the quality between that and the scoopic and in what way? 

[Jon O'Brien]

A Bolex would be great but they can be a bit expensive, though as Dom says the non-reflex models are lower in price. Check to see if it's a single or double perf model.

I've found that the Kodak K100 is a solid and sturdy camera and would probably suit you for what you want. They tend to be less expensive than Bolexes but can be a bit hit and miss when you buy one from ebay. I've found the picture isn't as steady as the images from a Bolex (at least the ones I've tried). The image can be steadied easily in post if you are scanning and exhibiting digitally. Some of these cameras look like they've had an extremely tough life. I've bought a few at a great price and some work and some don't. Actually I'm thinking of asking Dom to open up one for me and see if he can fix it. It looks fine on the outside and inside the film compartment.

Another affordable possibility might be a Bell & Howell Filmo but I'd recommend getting one of the later versions. Do a search on best Filmo models to get. All the best with your search. You just have to dive in somehow and start the learning process with any old camera that you can afford and that will work.

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, George Hill said:

One of my favorite ski films was shot on the arri 16s, how different is the quality between that and the scoopic and in what way? 

16S is a pretty heavy camera and it's not really friendly for run and gun. Things like the separate battery pack really suck. 

There is really no comparison, the 16S, M and S/B are commercial cameras designed right after the war and released in the early 1950's. They were designed for commercial production and even though they did make a little shoulder bracket for it, they really suck for handheld work, right up there with the worst cameras for hand held ever made. So unless you're on a tripod and mind you, a tripod that can hold a cement brick due to the weight, it's really not an option. 

[George Hill]

7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

16S is a pretty heavy camera and it's not really friendly for run and gun. Things like the separate battery pack really suck. 

There is really no comparison, the 16S, M and S/B are commercial cameras designed right after the war and released in the early 1950's. They were designed for commercial production and even though they did make a little shoulder bracket for it, they really suck for handheld work, right up there with the worst cameras for hand held ever made. So unless you're on a tripod and mind you, a tripod that can hold a cement brick due to the weight, it's really not an option. 

This is very useful info thank you, I definitely want something that is light and good for handheld work

[Dom Jaeger]

10 hours ago, George Hill said:

One of my favorite ski films was shot on the arri 16s, how different is the quality between that and the scoopic and in what way? 

Scoopics were designed almost like a Super 8 camera, with a fixed zoom and a beam splitter for focussing, and the capacity for auto-aperture. They are easy to load (like a Bolex they have an auto-threading system) and pretty easy to use, and ideal for hand holding. But the footage often has a bit of exposure flicker and the electronics often fail. For your purposes they would probably be great, but these days they are more expensive than they should be, like Bolexes, and can be a real pain to repair. You also can’t change lenses, you’re stuck with the zoom it comes with.
 

By contrast, an Arri 16S is a professional grade camera, highly durable, extremely stable and with a spinning reflex mirror. I disagree with what has been said about them not being good for hand-held - they were designed to be handheld as well as mountable, with a grip at the front which allows you to simultaneously hold the camera and adjust focus on a lens with one finger. They are heavier than a Scoopic or a Bolex but still quite useable I think. (As an aside I think it’s worth noting that if you use longer lenses hand held, your footage will be quite shaky, so using a tripod might sometimes be a good idea anyway.) A 16S contain no electronics other than the motor, which is replaceable, so you never get electrical issues like you do with a Scoopic or electric Bolex or Beaulieu etc. You do need an external battery supply, but it’s easy to put a small battery in a backpack or shoulder bag. Currently they are often less expensive than a reflex Bolex or a Scoopic, which is crazy to me given how superior the build is. It will give you outstanding images, but it’s maybe not the best choice for going up mountains. 🙂
 

 

[Pablo Cruz Villalba]

Canon Scoopic. I'm selling one in Mexico city, it you are interested

[George Hill]

On 3/10/2025 at 9:44 AM, Dom Jaeger said:

Scoopics were designed almost like a Super 8 camera, with a fixed zoom and a beam splitter for focussing, and the capacity for auto-aperture. They are easy to load (like a Bolex they have an auto-threading system) and pretty easy to use, and ideal for hand holding. But the footage often has a bit of exposure flicker and the electronics often fail. For your purposes they would probably be great, but these days they are more expensive than they should be, like Bolexes, and can be a real pain to repair. You also can’t change lenses, you’re stuck with the zoom it comes with.
 

By contrast, an Arri 16S is a professional grade camera, highly durable, extremely stable and with a spinning reflex mirror. I disagree with what has been said about them not being good for hand-held - they were designed to be handheld as well as mountable, with a grip at the front which allows you to simultaneously hold the camera and adjust focus on a lens with one finger. They are heavier than a Scoopic or a Bolex but still quite useable I think. (As an aside I think it’s worth noting that if you use longer lenses hand held, your footage will be quite shaky, so using a tripod might sometimes be a good idea anyway.) A 16S contain no electronics other than the motor, which is replaceable, so you never get electrical issues like you do with a Scoopic or electric Bolex or Beaulieu etc. You do need an external battery supply, but it’s easy to put a small battery in a backpack or shoulder bag. Currently they are often less expensive than a reflex Bolex or a Scoopic, which is crazy to me given how superior the build is. It will give you outstanding images, but it’s maybe not the best choice for going up mountains. 🙂
 

 

Ok this makes a lot of sense because I was rewatching one of the films I’m taking a lot of inspiration from and there are tons and tons of handheld shots on the arri, and I like that there are minimal electronics. Plus it seems like they are selling for similar prices as the scoopic right now? Which is weird considering what you guys are saying about the quality.  

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, George Hill said:

Ok this makes a lot of sense because I was rewatching one of the films I’m taking a lot of inspiration from and there are tons and tons of handheld shots on the arri, and I like that there are minimal electronics. Plus it seems like they are selling for similar prices as the scoopic right now? Which is weird considering what you guys are saying about the quality.  

A lot of people get confused watching BTS of old stuff and wondering why they used the equipment they did. With older stuff, the reason why is simply because nothing else existed and/or it was the best package at the time they could afford. The image quality coming out of a Scoopic vs 16S will be negligible unless both cameras have been serviced, especially the lenses. Remember, today these are very old cameras. The 16S is from the 1950's and the Scoopic 1970's. So just because you see something on film and say "wow that looks amazing, I want that" doesn't mean the quality of the kit you'll purchase is anything like that. We also have more options today than ever before honestly, so many great cameras to choose from. 

As a documentary filmmaker, someone who shoots on 16mm nearly exclusively AND a professionally trained camera tech, I have a very unique knowledge base and I have run into so many people like you, looking to start out with something and what to go with. I find the vast majority of people who start out heavy/large, never use their cameras. Those who start out light/small, use them all the time. It's the same with cinema cameras, would you shoot with an Alexa Classic over a Komodo X? You'd probably grab the Komodo for most things because it's so small. It's an enabler to help get you out and shoot more. It's why I bought a Beaulieu 2016 even though I have 2 XTR Prod packages, because I want to go out and shoot stuff without the bulk of the XTR"s and that Beaulieu is an enabler. It's why I still have ANY super 8 cameras, a format I have denigrated and relegated to BS work, but still shoot from time to time because the cameras are so darn small. They enable me to go out and shoot things in places, I simply can't take a 16mm camera. 

So in the end, there is a lot to think about and it not quite as simple as "that camera looked great" the "look" itself is the stock (most of the time long been since discontinued) the coloring of the film, sometimes even the unusual lens or even filters, which create the entire look of the finished product. It's not SO cut and dry with motion picture. 

[Aapo Lettinen]

One thing to consider is the price of lenses. The Arri16s body itself is relatively affordable but people want crazy sums from the original lenses, a single prime can cost more than the camera body. If wanting to shoot on a budget with the Arri you would end up with some really depressing cheap prime no one wants to shoot with, or need to use a zoom lens (angenieux or zeiss) exclusively with bad ergonomics and lower image quality.

The Kinor16 would have low priced good quality primes but the camera body is not as reliable as the 16s. The kinor has orientable viewfinder and with 100ft mag and my compact crystal motor is not much larger than the arri16s. 

But I might actually consider something like Eclair ACL with Switars and 200ft magazine even when the camera has the oscillating mirror system which can sometimes flicker a tiny bit. Even with 400ft mag the ACL is still not that much larger than arri16s because the body itself is tiny. The c-mount lenses are a huge advantage as well as the orientable finder and it is smaller and lighter than arri16s or kinor16. I still sell newly made ACL crystal motors so the original motor does not need to work.

If the lens prices are not an issue then the arris are generally good because they are simple and reliable

[Simon Wyss]

For action shooting, OP writes ski films, the following aspects ought to be considered.

• frame rates; is acceleration wanted, is slow motion desired
• shutter opening per cycle; is smooth movement rendering important or less blur in favour of a more staccato movement acceptable
• how much film shall be loadable; 50 to 400 feet
• volume, weight, ruggedness, serviceability; from a GIC 16 (loads 50 feet, runs at 16 fps only, has 140 degrees shutter opening angle, has fixed register tongue, C-mount thread, can take lightweight lenses) to the Eumig C 16 (runs up to 64 fps, has 160 degrees shutter opening, built-in Eumigar 25-1.9, an Ernostar variant, semi-automatic iris) to a brand new Y16 (planned to appear this year or next). In the cold (skiing) you will be better off with a spring drive. No worry about batteries

A 50-foot magazine loading Bell & Howell Filmo Auto Load can do the trick because it takes C-mount lenses, speeds up from 16 to 64, weighs little. Certainly, for longer during takes you want an electric drive or a Victor 3/4/5 that runs over 55 seconds at speed 24. The Victor is lighter in weight than a Filmo 70, takes 100 feet of film, younger models go up to 72 fps. Quite reliable is an ETM-P 16 from France, all steel mechanism, ground glass, high-speed model runs 120 fps top. Only a Filmo 70 Super-Speed goes faster, 128 fps.

[Aapo Lettinen]

Would probably be optimal to have two different camera bodies if there is both heavy action stuff like jumping while filming with the camera but more stable almost-tripod-style handheld stuff too.

One super sturdy and handy camera body for filming while doing tricks and the other body with 200ft to 400ft mags and orientable finder to make low angles etc shooting easier and allowing shooting lots of material without reloading.

If same lenses would fit both then would be pretty useful combo

[Raaf Sundquist]

@Tyler Purcell - I know you love the Beaulieu 2016 quartz but I note that while you mentioned it, you didn't recommend it on this thread. 

Is this because they are so difficult to find?

Edited Wednesday at 04:21 PM by Raaf Sundquist

[Tyler Purcell]

3 hours ago, Raaf Sundquist said:

I know you love the Beaulieu 2016 quartz but I note that while you mentioned it, you didn't recommend it on this thread. 

Is this because they are so difficult to find?

Yea, the 2016 is IMPOSSIBLE to find actually, more rare than any other good 16mm camera I've seen. Plus the pricing would be way too much for the OP, who clearly is looking for an entry level system. I would never suggest the 2016 to anyone who isn't specifically ok with waiting 2 - 3 years for one to pop up AND requires the special functionality that camera has such as a good built-in light meter, standard c mount lens operation, 80fps, crystal sync, Forward/Reverse operation, 200ft magazine, actual mirror reflex design, etc. I absolutely love mine and have been on many adventures with it around the country, but it's very much a specific camera for a specific task; the run and gun 16mm filmmaker who needs more than just a consumer camera quality. The Scoopic is a very good camera that I recently started recommending because frankly, there are so few options like it on the market today. Back when you could get an EBM for $500 bux, it was a no-brainer to buy an EBM or an EL. However, with the crazy pricing today, it's clear the Scoopic wins in so many categories. For $800 bux it's probably (though unfortunately) the best deal today. A camera I have glossed over in the past because there were far better options for not much more money in the past. 

[George Hill]

21 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

A lot of people get confused watching BTS of old stuff and wondering why they used the equipment they did. With older stuff, the reason why is simply because nothing else existed and/or it was the best package at the time they could afford. The image quality coming out of a Scoopic vs 16S will be negligible unless both cameras have been serviced, especially the lenses. Remember, today these are very old cameras. The 16S is from the 1950's and the Scoopic 1970's. So just because you see something on film and say "wow that looks amazing, I want that" doesn't mean the quality of the kit you'll purchase is anything like that. We also have more options today than ever before honestly, so many great cameras to choose from. 

As a documentary filmmaker, someone who shoots on 16mm nearly exclusively AND a professionally trained camera tech, I have a very unique knowledge base and I have run into so many people like you, looking to start out with something and what to go with. I find the vast majority of people who start out heavy/large, never use their cameras. Those who start out light/small, use them all the time. It's the same with cinema cameras, would you shoot with an Alexa Classic over a Komodo X? You'd probably grab the Komodo for most things because it's so small. It's an enabler to help get you out and shoot more. It's why I bought a Beaulieu 2016 even though I have 2 XTR Prod packages, because I want to go out and shoot stuff without the bulk of the XTR"s and that Beaulieu is an enabler. It's why I still have ANY super 8 cameras, a format I have denigrated and relegated to BS work, but still shoot from time to time because the cameras are so darn small. They enable me to go out and shoot things in places, I simply can't take a 16mm camera. 

So in the end, there is a lot to think about and it not quite as simple as "that camera looked great" the "look" itself is the stock (most of the time long been since discontinued) the coloring of the film, sometimes even the unusual lens or even filters, which create the entire look of the finished product. It's not SO cut and dry with motion picture. 

Gotcha that all makes a lot of sense. The reason I am obsessing over these older videos (they’re both from the mid 2000s) is because I’ve seen newer ski content creators dip their toes into 16mm a bit and it all looks a lot worse than what people were putting out 20 years ago. The newer stuff looks less professional, and a lot more “vintage” in a way that I’m not crazy about. The 16mm from the 2000s looks a lot more crisp and modern. So I’m just trying to figure out why that is and how to avoid that. I’m sure skill has a lot to do with it, but maybe there are differences in their cameras or film as well. I’m guessing the selection of cameras was pretty similar 20 years ago, but was the film stock very different? I’m really just trying to avoid buying something that I will want to replace in a couple years, that I can grow into as I get better. 

[Jon O'Brien]

Any chance you could post a link to an example of one of the ski films you really like George? I haven't read the whole thread, but might these films be on YouTube or Vimeo? I'd be interested myself to see them.

It's interesting how a few sports/action cinematographers are returning to film. I've noticed that surfing filmmakers have a real love affair going with celluloid film. This could somewhat be due to the influence of 'Morning of the Earth,' that was shot on 16mm and became semi-famous for a while there. Some beautiful film imagery in that movie. The music helped it become popular, too. They released an album of it in the 70s.

Really, I'd be inclined to get an Arri 16S if you can pick up a good one for a good price. You are obviously interested in it. As mentioned lenses are expensive but it sounds like you don't need more than one or two. They are a beautiful camera and should keep running with regular maintenance and care for many decades to come. I'm not so sure about some cheaper models. Like I said K100s are hit and miss sometimes. I've got two that won't run.

Edited Thursday at 01:08 AM by Jon O'Brien

[Albion Hockney]

I know back in the day the arri 16s was the go to for ski/snowboard films. I knew someone who had theirs converted to s16.