Konvas 1M & 2M vs Eclair CM3/cameflex

chris descor · April 27, 2010

hello

I'm interested in the near future to purchase a 35mm motion picture camera.

After doing a bit of research it seems either the Konvas 1M/2M or the Eclair CM3/cameflex would be the best cameras for my budget.

I'm not throwing out the idea of an Arri IIC, but I suspect they are a bit more expensive, or not?

Anyway, I must say that I'm not currently looking to get a 35mm camera, yet. I've just gotten a nice H16 Bolex and am yet to shoot anythin with it. I'm still trying to figure out where to get film processed and workprints/release prints made that I can afford. Not too keen on telecine/the digital world.

SO first I'm going to play and experiment with 16mm. this is a natural progression after years of having used super8.

I dont make plans way ahead in advance, but do like to further my knowledge in areas I hope to get into in the coming years.

Now I have read things here and there, on this forum and elsewhere about the Konvas and cameflex, that they are MOS/noisy cameras etc that the Konvas 1M/2M are clones of the cameflex. but I havent seen any discussion on which is the allround best to get.

When I say best to get, I mean which out of the three is most portable, most modifiable(like if I wanted mounts modified), which can take 1000ft loads(if any can at all!), which is most reliable, which can be blimped effectively, which is best to have sync-motor/sound installed etc, which is the best value, which is simply the best! :) ???

I also dont understand this thing about the konvas motor differences, 17 or 19 ??? could someone please explain this in simple terms?

Of course the year of production makes a big difference so I've read. early 90s konvas seem to be the best I presume.

I'm not sure whether I would like to have a 1M with the three lens turret or the 2M with the one lens turret.

I like the portability of the three lens design, like in my Bolex, where you can go out into the field with 3 lenses, as well as be in an interior. fast-paced and no mucking about with changing lenses all the time like a one lens design like the 2M.

but aside from the lens design, would the 1M have any advantages, disadvantages over the 2M or cameflex or vice versa?

so are Konvas cameras from the early 90s better built than the old cameflex?

Its likely I would have the camera overhauled, cleaned up, possibly modified etc so that its a useable camera.

Or I could just wait until something comes up on ebay, where someone else has spent the effort to do all this.(i know of the current auction of a konvas as of now-late april 2010, but i'm waiting to learn more, to make the right decision).

please note that I'm a film-study student(not using film), but use film by myself, an amatuer. so a 35mm motion picture camera is something I want into the future. not RED or anything digital

So please lecture me! :D

thank you

Olex Kalynychenko · April 27, 2010

After doing a bit of research it seems either the Konvas 1M/2M or the Eclair CM3/cameflex would be the best cameras for my budget.
I'm not throwing out the idea of an Arri IIC, but I suspect they are a bit more expensive, or not?

Konvas-2M better.

Lens mount.

Konvas-2M better because, have one lens mount with Arri PL, BNCR style of jamming lens inside lens mount. This is type of lens mount more precieion and more stable ( FFD ).

IIC can be upgrade on Arri PL, but, ask additional money for upgrade.

Any lens mount with Arri standard bayonet style have less stable FFD.

Motor

CM3 do not have crystal sync speed motor, have old rheostat control motor.

Original version IIC do not have crystal sync speed motor, askof additional money for installation crystal sync speed motor.

Film magazines.

Konvas have 200 ft and 400 ft quick-change magazine.

Lenses.

Konvas-2M have very good LOMO lenses. LOMO lenses hav high optical characteristics and low price now. the many users of RED cameras to find of LOMO lenses for use.

If you prefer Arri Pl mount lenses, Konvas-1M, 2M can be upgrade on Arri Pl lens mount.

Konvas-2M upgrade better.

Konvas motor can be upgrade on multi speed crystal sync speed with multi mode digital film counter, with variable speed ( Arri VArio VSU device ), full motor control remote control with long cord.

Konvas motor can have multi speed synthesizers.

And all this for understandable price.

Anybody have other opinion ?

that the Konvas 1M/2M are clones of the cameflex.

Konvas do not clone of the Cameflex, this is other design of camera.

The similarity at base idea of camera environment only.

I also dont understand this thing about the konvas motor differences, 17 or 19 ??? could someone please explain this in simple terms?

17EP-16 APK motor and 19EP-16 APK motor do not have distinction in kind.

This is similar motors at outside and inside.

The motors have a small difference at plates of electronic control inside.

The schematic do not have a base difference too.

You can choose any motor 17EP or 19EP.

Freya Black · April 27, 2010

The upside to the CM3 is that it is easy to convert to 2perf, whereas the Konvas can't be easily converted to 2perf. That is a big upside and is probably the main draw of the CM3.

The CM3 is better for animation than the Konvas as it doesn't leak light when at rest.

There are crystal motors for the CM3 but they are hard to come by as is preety much all CM3 related stuff. It's just much, much rarer than Konvas stuff. In fact most Konvas stuff is easy to come by but CM3 stuff is hell to lay your hands on.

If you get a CM3 you will almost certainly need a PL or nikon mount for the thing as lenses for it are much harder to come by too.

Konvas lenses are relatively easy to come by at least in OCT18. You can even get anamorphic lenses and gates fairly easily.

love

Freya

Olex Kalynychenko · April 27, 2010

The upside to the CM3 is that it is easy to convert to 2perf, whereas the Konvas can't be easily converted to 2perf. That is a big upside and is probably the main draw of the CM3.

Yes, Konvas 2 pef upgrade ask of special parts and do not easily.

The CM3 is better for animation than the Konvas as it doesn't leak light when at rest.
There are crystal motors for the CM3 but they are hard to come by as is preety much all CM3 related stuff. It's just much, much rarer than Konvas stuff. In fact most Konvas stuff is easy to come by but CM3 stuff is hell to lay your hands on.

If the CM3 can attach a Konvas 17EP-16 APK motor ( or 18EP-16 APK ), or any DC motor with permanent magnetic and feed back, we can build of any version of crystal sync speed control with time lapse and signle frame shooting.

Bruce Taylor · April 27, 2010

Yes, Konvas 2 pef upgrade ask of special parts and do not easily.

Arri IIC is also a relatively inexpensive conversion to 2 perf, if that's a future direction you would want this to take. Parts and service are available. You can hard front them to just about any lens mount you want.

I have always had a soft spot for the Eclair CM3, but as Freya points out, it is tough finding any parts or modern motors for them. At this time, the Konvas is very practical. Inexpensive Lomo glass, parts and service are not hard to find, and Olex is making very nice motor modifications to modernize them.

If you want to shoot sync sound though, none of these is a very good choice. If you do decide to shoot sync, you'll want a crystal sync motor at least.

Bruce Taylor

www.Indi35.com

John Sprung · April 27, 2010

Check out the very nice Arri IIC that Tim Carroll has for sale. The Arri is the best and most widely used of the three.

The CM-3 isn't even a consideration any more. Very few were ever made, and they've been out of production for a long long time. If you can find one, by all means don't do anything to it. It should be conserved as an antique. If you want that form factor, there are plenty of Konvas, and you can get parts and service for them. I believe that the ASC has a CM-3 in their museum, but that may be the only one I've ever seen.

-- J.S.