Best 16 mm Camera for shooting action shots outdoors

[Dom Jaeger]

22 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

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. 

I don't agree.

Arri 16S and SB cameras were made from the the 50s right through to the 80s. They were made with far better materials than amateur or even prosumer cameras, and designed to be serviced, although I've found (as an actual camera technician with 30 years experience) that they will often keep running for decades without much upkeep. As I mentioned before, they contain no electronics, and the motors are interchangeable, so you don't get electrical issues. The reflex viewing is via a spinning mirror shutter, just like the 35mm cameras used professionally to shoot movies. It means there are no prisms or pellicles in the light path which can degrade the image. The lenses are Arri Standard or Bayonet mount (if you get an SB variant), which were professional grade. You can also use 35mm lenses with the same mounts, which were used on countless movies. The price of these lenses has gone up, but so have all lenses unfortunately, even C mounts. The images you tend to get from a pin-registered Arriflex are super steady, and because of the very clear reflex viewing and tight tolerances for settings like flange depth, the focus is usually spot on. You don't get scratches or light leaks or any of the other faults that are more likely with more amateur or prosumer gear. So generally an Arri 16S is in much better condition than many other older 16mm cameras you'll find on the second hand market, and more likely to just work. 

Canon Scoopics were made from the mid 60s to the mid 80s. Early versions were not as good as later ones, and while they are great little reportage cameras, they suffer from the same issue that many electronic cameras of this era do - faulty electrics. I  must have repaired (or attempted to repair) a dozen of them over the years, running at max speed, having auto iris faults, or just being erratic. The zoom is fixed, so you're stuck with a focal length range of 12.5 to 75 (or 13 to 76 for the first model). 12.5mm is not very wide for 16mm format, considering you can get an 8mm prime or a 10-100 or 9.5-95 zoom in those Arri mounts. And 75mm is not particularly long either if you want to shoot subjects at a distance, though it's worth remembering that you will get pretty shaky footage handholding with telephotos.  If the Canon zoom or the internal reflex prim gets fungus, it's a major job to service, as are the camera mechanics, hidden under a rat's nest of wires that all need to be de-soldered. I've also heard plenty of complaints about Scoopics having exposure flicker, whether due to the auto iris or some thing else I'm not sure. They are much more likely to have some instability from a worn gate or claw. And the number of shops willing and able to service them are few. So taking all that into account, the chance of a Scoopic giving the same image quality as an Arri 16S is actually unlikely. Apart from beaten up early models, most Scoopics sell for $1200-2500 these days, which is about what you can get a working Arri 16S or SB for, sometimes including lenses.

With patience you could also get a decent reflex Bolex for that sort of money, which would be fine for this application too I think. The viewfinders are not as bright and clear, but they are solid cameras, often used for filming surfing, skateboarding and other sports. No batteries is a bonus up a mountain.

Every camera has it's pros and cons, and some are better suited to certain jobs than others. As mentioned, the Arri is heavier and needs external batteries, so maybe it's not the best option for climbing up mountains. If the OP had a bigger budget, perhaps there would be better options. It's also quite possible to go cheaper, and try some non-reflex cameras using depth of field and lens distance scales to achieve reasonable focus. Out of non-reflex options, I think a Bolex is probably the most reliable and easiest to get serviced, but there are smaller and lighter options 

[Aapo Lettinen]

yes if the costly lenses are not an issue then the Arri16s is still pretty good camera as long as not needing orientable viewfinder. I just have a feeling that a person shooting sports stuff would eventually want to shoot some extreme low angles and those are really painful to try to do with a fixed viewfinder. Though I can't think of any native-100ft daylight spool camera which has orientable viewfinder... one can use daylight spools on some larger cameras meant for 200ft and 400ft loads and those have orientable finders.

c-mount lenses have some unique options which are not possible with other mounts. for example one can get wide angle and extreme wide angle and fisheye lenses which are super affordable but still cover S16. not the best contrast but if a lens costs 80 bucks or less and is not used for all the footage shot, then probably does not matter. old 60's lenses have questionable contrast too and cost from 5 to 10 times the price of those Chinese cheap-o c-mount lenses 😄 

As for the 2000's film stuff looking better, I think it was because they had lots more budget so shot more material to select from the best shots, and film was used purely for technical excellence, not for nostalgia value. Current filmmakers have shoestring budget so they will basically need to use every second of raw material they shoot with the camera in the final product, and additionally film is used for nostalgia value nowadays so if it does not distinguish from video enough one could shoot on video just as well. Thus the footage is tried to made to look like "old film" and gate mask edges need to show in the final product, scratches and dust are not removed, etc. It is same with music videos etc stuff, in the 90's and early 2000's they shot most of high end stuff on film but it was not needed to make it "look like film", it was just necessary to make it look really good. Nowadays they even have to show some darn making of material during end credits to point out that "we indeed shot real film"

[Eric Eader]

Hello,

For what it is worth, I wholeheartedly agree with the Arri-16S and its variants.  Heavy is relative, though.

So, unless you are hiking up and down the ski slope and not using the ski lift, I don't think it matters.

Three prime lenses, wide, medium and long with battery and cable are most definitely run and gun. I shot sports: football, basketball, baseball, and parades/marches (and more), with a 16SB, a 12-120 Ang. zoom, 400ft. mags, and the battery belt.  It was the best we had... superior images to the TV station's Auricon Pro600, Frezzolini, or their Bell & Howell 70DR's. (My trainer would not let me operate those cameras until I could correctly and quickly thread them blindfolded).

When the USS Nimitz was commissioned the CBS Network cameraman next to me was using an Ang. 24-240 zoom on his Frezzi camera. His was a tight head and shoulders shot while my 12-120 on a CP-16 was just a medium wide shot.  (But I did have more headroom, LOL).

The three Angenieux zooms 9.5-95,  12-120,  or  24-240 will get you closer and closer as you require. Pick the one you need.

Maine is both windier and colder than than it was at an East Carolina College football game on their stadium roof, but that was where I learned the 16B's battery needs warmth to run properly. So, a jacket and handwarmer or two wrapped around the battery on the tripod would be a starting point for solving that little problem.  Spring wound just seems to me courting disaster as the film stops at the one moment you don't want it to.

Whatever setup you choose, set aside some time to work with the lens zooming and follow-focusing so you are never out of focus no matter what the fstop.  With practice it can be done, I promise.

The 400ft. mags meant that a mag change at Halftime usually was good for the entire game with only one battery needed.  Be sure each mag has its own torque motor... makes for quicker camera re-threading.

100ft. loads do-able?  Yeah, sure. But how much action will you be missing while changing film?  Another thing to consider:  light leaks at head and tail of film, and shorter run time with camera running at 30fps.  Truly a lot of work. Nose to the grindstone labor. And less image time.

Because they are not zooms, (or maybe they aren't that good?), no one has mentioned the once popular Century Precision Tele-Athenars Telephoto Prime lenses used on many surfing movies.

One last comment: An unmentioned real drawback to the Canon Scoopic is that to set the aperture, one must rotate a knob on the front upper corner of the camera; not rotate the aperture around the lens barrel as is normal on almost all other motion picture lens/camera combinations. Much easier to alter the setting while picking up/setting down the camera.  When my station bought two Scoopics when they first appeared, I set aside my personally owned B&H 70 and thrilled to reflex viewing (too bad it wasn't 9.5 to 95).  But that was then and this is now and all the cameras I once used are all old or dead,  but, ARRI 16S's are the most robust and easy to use, considering the expense of Eclairs, Aaton's and ARRI SR's and associated repair problems today.

The non-orientable finder is the biggest downside (not 16x9 frame either), and digital offers huge advantages, so limiting it to less expensive 16mm cameras/lenses the Arri 16S would be a workable choice for a film camera.  (It is a pin registered camera). But that is my opinion, and I'm glad I don't have to make that choice today, because angst aside I would probably have to choose digital.

 

 

 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

8 hours ago, George Hill said:

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. 

I mean, the film stocks are very similar to 20 years ago. Vision film released at the end of the 90's and even though it's more tailored to digital finish in later iterations like the modern Vision 3 stock, it's still a similar look. What you probably are seeing mostly, is a difference in budget, skill, worn out equipment and the way things were finished. 

A well maintained camera body, should have no effect on the image outside of the optics. What lens you use of course, makes a difference. It's not cut and dry tho, because depending on budget, you will also be limited on lens choice. Either something integrated like the Scoopic or something extremely old and potentially not working properly, like some Arri B mount lens for a 16S. Either way, a more modern and professional setup, would net you superior results. 

Professional filmmakers who shoot on 16mm, generally use an Arri SR3, Aaton XTR Prod or Arri 416. Those are kind of the 3 top cameras. Now you aren't getting into any of those for sub $15k, but that's basically what you'll be after in the future. I went with Aaton, trained to be a tech and now I service them professionally, and also shoot quite a lot of film as a for-hire DP and my own work. Where I do like the SR's and 416's, as an owner operator, I just love the form factor of the Aaton XTR Prod. Where it's not a hiking camera by any stretch of the imagination, it does fit the bill for the over-all package quality, ease of use and performance.

Being in your shoes is challenging, I talk with young filmmakers who want to shoot on film every day. I've made all the mistakes, but I've also made the films to prove what works and what doesn't. I've also owned so many cameras, not just serviced them, but bought them, shot with them, formed an educated opinion and figured out what works and what doesn't. None of this is rocket science. It's not the 1970's, expectations on modern filmmakers are higher than they've ever been. Using an antiquated camera system will just lead to frustration with the process.

Where I agree somewhat with negative attributes Dom discusses about the Scoopic, unfortunately it's the only small, extremely portable, electric motor drive 16mm camera that has a cult following, reasonable support (new batteries and parts, etc) plus they're extremely easy to use. You can buy one any day of the week, from various sources, not just some random guy on Ebay. It will fit in a backpack no problem, good new batteries last a long time, it's beyond easy to load, has all the features like decent focal length (12.5-75 T1.8) , reflex viewfinder, high speed (64fps) for slow mo shots and most importantly an internal meter that's meh, but works.

Wind up cameras are a joke for this sorta work, they'll always be a problem due to the length of the wind and being able to capture moments and mot worrying about the wind. Plus, you're stuck to having an external meter all the time, which really sucks. Bolex EL/EBM's are too much money for what they are. I wouldn't own a Beaulieu unless you were a tech. I love my 2016 Beaulieu, but they are impossible to find. Cameras like the CP16R are inexpensive, but they are plagued with board issues and now the main parts supplier seems to have gone out of business, so I'm sitting here with my thumb up my A$$ trying to find parts as I'm one of the only service providers in the country maintaining them. Eclairs can be hit or miss, the ACLII is a pretty fine camera, but hard to find and very expensive for what it is. Tho that little 200ft mag is just perfect for so much work. The Arri 16S that Dom suggests, where it may sound attractive financially, they are not very portable. They are very heavy with a decent zoom lens, there is a considerable amount of weight way out in front of your face, holding it up with one hand and then adjusting focus is nearly impossible. You need a huge shoulder kit, which suddenly makes it not light and not portable and certainly not something that will fit in a backpack for carrying it around when hiking. Then you have to wear a battery belt with a damn cable the entire time. By the way the belt itself has more mass than the entire Scoopic camera. So unless you're on a tripod 100% of the time, have a truck a few feet away full of equipment and do not care about portability what so ever, then it's absolutely in no way shape or form, something I'd ever recommend. It is as Dom suggests, a very robust and well made camera, but its portability is based on being a few feet from a vehicle. Darn thing doesn't even have a decent carry handle, something that can be easily remedied if you have a machine shop, but really guys? Also and IDK if anyone knows this, there is little to no support for the older black body Arri cameras in the United States anymore. Plus, even you could find a tech to work on it, the pricing would be outrageous because if it needs parts, good luck finding them. In the case of the Arri S, M and S/M it's mostly motor issues you'll run into and I've seen it countless times. 

Anyway, those are my .02 cents. 

Edited March 13 by Tyler Purcell

[Aapo Lettinen]

I can still supply completely new 4-speed +variable boards for CP16R so the boards are not an issue. Complex film path and awkward for factor is which is why I recommended the ACL. But the acl original motors are not that reliable because being very old and complex so it may be necessary to have one of my newly made motors as backup.with acl one would save a fortune on lenses because it can use c-mount, one can easily buy one or two extra cameras with the saved lens prices.

Arri16s is not that bad sized but relatively heavy and the lenses can be very expensive. And the fixed viewfinder. New motors can be made, Kamran has that affordable 2speed motor and I am working on two different more expensive 16s motors at the moment. 

If I got the lenses for free, then could take the arri16s for it being robust. Otherwise probably Kinor16 or ACL, either one with new motor.

If having tons of money, the Arri SR2 or Aaton LTR, with PL mount to have good lens choices. The SR2 is more backpack sized and LTR is better handheld. 

I used to shoot mos docu stuff with konvas1kcp with single prime lens, carrying it around in backpack. Airsoft battery velcroed on the side for power. That kind of setup is pretty robust and cheaper than arri16s and pretty good image quality. Wide angle choices a bit limited but 28-35-50-75-135 primes are great and very compact. If you can get cheap 35mm stock it could be a interesting outside-the-box solution to shoot 35mm instead

[George Hill]

9 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

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.

Teddybear crisis was allegedly filmed on a Bolex but that’s not confirmed, IDEA was filmed on a couple different arri cameras

[Dom Jaeger]

7 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

yes if the costly lenses are not an issue then the Arri16s is still pretty good camera as long as not needing orientable viewfinder. I just have a feeling that a person shooting sports stuff would eventually want to shoot some extreme low angles and those are really painful to try to do with a fixed viewfinder. Though I can't think of any native-100ft daylight spool camera which has orientable viewfinder... 

Arri made a rotatable periscope attachment for the 16SB viewfinder, allowing you to view from above when doing low shots. See:

 

[Aapo Lettinen]

3 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Arri made a rotatable periscope attachment for the 16SB viewfinder, allowing you to view from above when doing low shots. See:

 

very difficult to find for sale though. probably one would need to hunt for the finder first and if able to locate one then purchase the camera body. stuff like that often takes from 1 to 2 years so would not count on it

[Dom Jaeger]

3 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

very difficult to find for sale though. probably one would need to hunt for the finder first and if able to locate one then purchase the camera body. stuff like that often takes from 1 to 2 years so would not count on it

Here’s one with a 16SB and a Zeiss 10-100. Took me 5 minutes.
 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/197095768101

[Tyler Purcell]

10 hours ago, George Hill said:

Teddybear crisis was allegedly filmed on a Bolex but that’s not confirmed, IDEA was filmed on a couple different arri cameras

Yea, you can see the daylight spool fringing from the edges in the 2nd video. So that musta been a 100ft load camera. At one point I thought I saw the camera in another shot, but it musta been the camcorder they were using as well. Neat videos tho, almost the same stuff the skateboard guys are doing. I have a friend I sold a very unique Eyemo to, which had a reflex viewfinder and he makes skateboard videos with it, they come out sick on 35mm 4 perf. Expensive, but man they're so cool looking. I think the "square" look is so back these days and that modernized Eyemo had Nikon mount, so you could use still lenses on it, which was awesome. 

[George Hill]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Yea, you can see the daylight spool fringing from the edges in the 2nd video. So that musta been a 100ft load camera. At one point I thought I saw the camera in another shot, but it musta been the camcorder they were using as well. Neat videos tho, almost the same stuff the skateboard guys are doing. I have a friend I sold a very unique Eyemo to, which had a reflex viewfinder and he makes skateboard videos with it, they come out sick on 35mm 4 perf. Expensive, but man they're so cool looking. I think the "square" look is so back these days and that modernized Eyemo had Nikon mount, so you could use still lenses on it, which was awesome. 

Newschool skiers have always taken tons of inspiration from skaters, but recently I think that has led them a bit astray, which is one of the reasons I want to get into film. A lot of skaters are super obsessed with the tape cameras like vx1000 which is totally valid because skating looks great on those cameras. So naturally skiers copied them, but I just don’t think skiing looks as good on the tape cameras. Something about the way 16mm in particular captures the glow and texture of snow in the sunlight is so good. And I think it makes more sense for skiing too because skiers usually get the shot first or second try, whereas skaters usually have to try a trick dozens of times before they land it. So skiers kind of have the advantage there when using film

I have a lot to think about, I really appreciate everybody’s advice! I’m a huge believer in old school forums like this one and you guys really delivered 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

18 hours ago, George Hill said:

Something about the way 16mm in particular captures the glow and texture of snow in the sunlight is so good.

100% man, I think the stuff looks great on film. The highlight retention of film is 2nd to none, so when you're shooting something that's literally white, it makes more sense to shoot in a format that has the DR to deal with it. Plus, most of the stuff is dealing with direct sun as well, which means harsh shadows and to retain both highlights and shadow data, it's film or an Alexa. 

[Jon O'Brien]

On 3/13/2025 at 8:34 PM, George Hill said:

Teddybear crisis was allegedly filmed on a Bolex but that’s not confirmed, IDEA was filmed on a couple different arri cameras

Great footage! Thanks for posting.

I've always thought snow scapes look fantastic on film. I remember seeing The Empire Strikes Back in 1980, shot, vfx'ed etc and projected on film, and the helicopter work for the snowspeeder POV shots was truly a great look. Film gave a beautiful painted quality to the landscape.