Arri IIC v. Eclair Cameflex

[Charlot Vega]

Which was is louder? (I read the Eclair was 60 db, but can't anything about Arri IIC.)

 

and

 

Which one is, overall, the more reliable camera?

 

thx-charlot

[John Sprung]

Which was is louder? (I read the Eclair was 60 db, but can't anything about Arri IIC.)

 

and

 

Which one is, overall, the more reliable camera?

 

thx-charlot

About a wash for noise, Arri is more reliable, and Arri parts and service are far more widely available.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Chris Keth]

I'd go with the arri. I've seen some fine arri 2s still around but have never seen a cameflex. There is probably a reason.

[John Sprung]

There is probably a reason.

The main reason is that Arri made about 17,000 of the II A-B-C's, far more than any other make and model. They're more robust and from the "B" onward have better registration than the CM-3.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Chris Keth]

The main reason is that Arri made about 17,000 of the II A-B-C's, far more than any other make and model. They're more robust and from the "B" onward have better registration than the CM-3.

-- J.S.

 

Does anyone service the cameflex anymore? I've never even seen one and rarely heard them spoken about.

[Charlot Vega]

About a wash for noise, Arri is more reliable, and Arri parts and service are far more widely available.

-- J.S.

 

Thanks for replying. And that's a very good point about service/parts. I think that alone could be a deciding factor.

 

Do you know of any films that mainly used Angineaux lenses? (the camera i'm looking to buy comes with one.)

 

I know the lens makes a huge difference for the image, so I wonder if there are certain films that a have a certain look because they use a certain lens? (Can a seasoned cinematographer see a film and know that Zeiss lenses were used?)

[James Steven Beverly]

Well another factor is, or maybe SHOULD be, that there are also a ton of Arri2 blimps about. They come up on ebay from time to time. If you're worried about noise, that would solve your problem in spades. I know the Eclair also had blimps made for them but I think I've only seen 1 the entire time I've been checking the ebay lists. B)

[kevin jackman]

my understanding is that the eclair has a steadier image due to the double registration claws. it can be quieted down by removing the 16mm claw. the camera is also more easily converted to 2 perf which is why ive been wanting one. it can take 35mm lenses whereas im sure the arri cant. i have also seen a few people that service the eclair. theres opto electrical house, the supervision guy in the uk, aranda although ive hear suspect things about them, and berniw at super16.com. please offer more info people. id like to hear. im in the same dilemma. are there twin pin arris? how about conversion?

[Hans Engstrom]

it can take 35mm lenses whereas im sure the arri cant.

?

[Charlot Vega]

Has anyone ever worked with a 'sound matte'? I'm wondering just how effective this device is.

[kevin jackman]

sorry i meant 35mm still lenses

[Leo Anthony Vale]

The Cameflex has a better viewfinder image. None of those light baffles.

 

& it's more comfortable for hand holding.

[John Sprung]

my understanding is that the eclair has a steadier image due to the double registration claws.

That's incorrect. The CM-3 has no registration pins, and no dwell claw. It uses a ratchet claw pulldown, which is much less precise than the cardioid cam/dwell setup of the Arri. The 16 claw has no effect on 35, though it does look like it should come dangerously close to scratching the 35. But I've never heard of that happening.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

The Cameflex has a better viewfinder image. None of those light baffles.

Here most of the rental inventory Arri II's have had the baffles removed -- you can just rip them out with a needle nose pliers. I never had any light leak problems with that. The downside to the Arri finder is that it doesn't quite cover the full Super width.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[kevin jackman]

i have what i think is a 2a...no markings saying its a B. i understand the claw is different from the B and C. does anybody know if this is true and if it can be converted? also, can the variable shutter be put in? my plan is to go to two perf. im kicking myself for not getting the tobin...

[Christian Appelt]

Those baffles are there to prevent stray light reflected by the ground glass from hitting the film. With some older lens designs and in really bright conditions I have seen strange leak light effects on a "de-baffled" Arri that were not caused by leaks in the door or mag - we had done a check on that before. I wouldn't take them out unless there is a very good reason for it! :)

Edited September 21, 2007 by Christian Appelt

[John Sprung]

i have what i think is a 2a...no markings saying its a B. i understand the claw is different from the B and C. does anybody know if this is true and if it can be converted? also, can the variable shutter be put in? my plan is to go to two perf. im kicking myself for not getting the tobin...

First, look at the serial number. The only thing I know about them is that #2000 is the first of the model II, anything under that is a model I. Perhaps someone else can give us the number ranges for the A, B, and C.

 

Then take the door off and inch the camera. Look at the mechanism that drives the claw up and down. As I understand it, from the II-B onward, this will be a cardioid cam about the size of a thumbnail. In the model I and early II, it's just a chrome disk with a small eccentric screw. I've heard it said that they also tried some sort of link mechanism in between, but I've never seen one.

 

As for conversions, first see what you have. It may be smarter to sell what you got and buy what you want -- check the numbers both ways before you go for a conversion. I had a II-C Techniscope parts kit years ago -- the gate, shutter, ground glass, etc. -- Sold it all for $250 in the early '90's.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Charlie Peich]

First, look at the serial number. The only thing I know about them is that #2000 is the first of the model II, anything under that is a model I. Perhaps someone else can give us the number ranges for the A, B, and C.

 

Then take the door off and inch the camera. Look at the mechanism that drives the claw up and down. As I understand it, from the II-B onward, this will be a cardioid cam about the size of a thumbnail. In the model I and early II, it's just a chrome disk with a small eccentric screw. I've heard it said that they also tried some sort of link mechanism in between, but I've never seen one.

 

-- J.S.

 

I have a 2A It is marked 'II A' on the round disk cover just above the tach, and the original paint covering the screws is untouched. S.N# 3939. It has the cardioid cam movement and a 180-degree shutter. Academy gate. It's hard to tell if the camera came that way, or if it was modified. The camera was 1st bought from Arri in Sweden, and then it made it's way to the states by a photog that purchased it while working in Sweden. It still has the baffles in front of the ground glass.

 

If have to agree with Christian about the baffles. It was tried with a 35-3 that I know of, and the similar "reflection" problems occurred. The baffles were put back as it was too difficult to predict when and under what exact conditions the reflections would occur.

[chuck colburn]

That's why it's best not to mount the spinning mirror at a 45 degree angle to the film plane.

[kevin jackman]

does anybody have a link to somebody that does a 2 perf conversion and claw upgrade?