Your favourite Camera

[Michael Nash]

Please let us know why it is disappointing in every way

 

Oh boy... maybe you should ask Geoff Boyle. :P

 

It served a purpose when it was invented, so I understand the reasons why it is the way it is. But by today's standards, it's just so frustrating. There's almost no practical way to adapt or modify the thing for the use you would want, at least not without spending as much as the purchase of a better camera.

 

The main limitation is the lens blimp. Without it you have essentially an MOS camera, too noisy to use with sound. With the lens blimp, you can't fit it with a follow focus. And there are only a couple lens blimps made for a few select lenses, most commmonly the exceptionally mediocre Angenieux 9.5-95 or 12-120. It's hard to come by the few prime lens blimps out there. Arri standard or Arri B mount, not PL, so you can't use it with most modern lens. And if you do fit it with a B-PL adapter, you can't use the lens blimp, which again makes it an MOS camera...

 

It comes with two viewfinders, one that points straight back for hand-held use, and a shorter one that rotates up for studio use, but conveniently rotates the image also! I always used to call this the "disorienting viewfinder" (as opposed to an "orientable" VF).

 

The thing is a tank, also. It was desinged for portability, but dang that thing is heavy and ergonomically wacky. It's awkward, difficult and fatiguing at best to hand-hold that camera without a special shoulder brace.

 

Standard 16 too. Of course you can perform various mods to it if you want, all of which would drive up the investment. I'd rather get an off-the-shelf Eclair NPR for a little more rather than upgrade a 16BL.

 

Having said all this, I'm sure I'm going to get comments form 16BL owners who may be happy with their cameras. If you like it and use it, then that's great, everything's working out for you. I'm content to let it be a relic of history...

[Tim Terner]

Thanks for the indepth explanation Michael. Guess you've converted me to the Eclair with that lens blimp info

[Greg Gross]

The Genesis is real pretty with its hard drive sitting on top. I 've been about 8ft. away from

one in NYC,never touched it. Never got to look through it,there was a crowd at exhibit,just

too many people. I hear and have read that the D-20 is a great camera also. I think the D-20

looks a little congested in photos. Actually the Arri 235 is the one that I would like to play with

for a day. I like to take the camera to the subject(action) the Arri 235 seems like a good choice.

 

Greg Gross

[Matthew Buick]

Design-wise, I always thought ILM's "Empireflex" VistaVision camera looked cool. The CircleVision camera rigs are really wild-looking...

 

I like the latest Arri designs in general, like the Arri-235 and Arri-416. The Panaflex Millenium-XL2 also looks a little sporty (for a little white box!)

 

For really old cameras, the Akeley is neat.

 

''Empireflex''? Sweet.

I hate the the 235, the 416 is a work of art, better than the D20 I think, (now I've seen it)

I always loved the old Panaflexes, there's something about them

No Idea what an Akeley is.

 

Matthew Buick

[Max Jacoby]

I hate the the 235

And what pray tell is this opinion of your based on? Certainly not on having used the camera I presume. This being a professional forum, I do find it a bit silly to judge a camera by how it looks. What counts is how it performs. The 235 is a great camera and you will find that most big shoots carry one nowadays, because it is so small and lightweight and can be used in many different ways that a sync sound camera cannot.

[Joe Taylor]

Yeah, I agree that the 235 is piece of poop. Total waste of time and space. Worthless. What were they thinking, Matthew? ME and you-- we're on the same page now. Arri 235-- what crap. Phtptptpt Raspberries.

 

Oh, and the Akely sort of revolutionized documentary filmmaking. I'm sure you've seen "Nanook of the North" a bunch of times. That was shot (Twice) with the Akely.

[Adam White]

Okay, so my choices arent based on 'tec, but . . . .

 

ARRI SR1 - as a newbie trainee, you would feel a palpable sense of relief when you heard the "satisfying click" of a successfully loaded mag connecting with the cogs. As I got the chance to shoot with them, their reliability, durability and ease of use gave me the confidence to experiment with configurations and tests.

 

It also demystified film cameras. In film-schools, people often crowd around the camera for long periods before quickly throwing a few lights about. The SR1 was so basic (at our place) that it was settup quickly and gave us more time to concentrate on lighting.

 

 

Sony VX100 - Looked like a Gerry Anderson sub from Stingray but was rewarding if you took the time to experiment with it. Comfortable to use, you could add all sorts of home-made contraptions to it and it usualy came up trumps.

 

 

Cannon 514L - Compact, sleek and simple. This S8 camera is a good start for newbies, in my opinion, and the single frame option was used by many local animators. One of the current posts on the S8 forum speculates what could be achieved with releasing digital-enhanced S8 products. I would love to see what Cannon could do with this.

[Brad Grimmett]

I guess the closest to a favorite I have would be the Moviecam SL, but that's based on my good experiences with it....I've heard bad things as well.

David, I believe the D20 is based on a 535, but I could be wrong.

I just spent a week with a Panastar, and besides the handheld I did with a 10-1 and a 1000ft mag, I quite liked it. But I really think your favorite camera would be the one you're most comfortable working with. I've worked for long periods with the Moviecam SL and the SR3, among others, so those are the cameras that I like the best because I'm most used to them.

As long as the camera does what you want and is reliable, it's the perfect camera. Some are a little better for certain reasons (like weight for example), and some are a little worse. Lenses or filmstocks are different, because they affect the look. The camera is just the box that does the job. The camera is probably the least subjective piece of gear we use.

[Max Jacoby]

David, I believe the D20 is based on a 535, but I could be wrong.

It is definitely based on the 435. Arri literature confirms that.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Design-wise, I always thought ILM's "Empireflex" VistaVision camera looked cool. The CircleVision camera rigs are really wild-looking...

 

 

For really old cameras, the Akeley is neat.

 

---In that case: Jan Jacobsen's MCS-70 camera. A sleek design and reflex too.

 

http://www.in70mm.com/newsletter/1999/57/jan/jacobsen.htm

 

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2005/fanny/brunet.htm

 

Some 65mm Panavision hand helds were reflexed with the MCS-70 viewing system.

There are stills of Freddie Young using one on 'Ryan's Daughter' and of one bing used in a helicopter on "\'Grand Prix'.

 

Yeah, the Akeley's a neat looker. Carl Akeley was also the Father of Modern Taxidermy and a major pioneer in museum natural history displays.

 

The RKO studio camera is a curious design. Their home made BNC with rounded edges and a patent leather finish.

 

---LV

[Brad Grimmett]

It is definitely based on the 435. Arri literature confirms that.

Gotcha. I must have misheard the Arri rep when he was talking about the camera.