bell and howell 200T magazine camera

[Richard Tuohy]

Hello all,

amongst my collection of cameras I have the Russian Kiev 16 C-3. It is a copy of the Bell and Howell 200T. It is the smallest 16mm camera I know of and possibly a great traveling camera. I had assumed however that the lenses were c-mount. Turns out they are bigger than that.

So I'd like to find out if the original Bell and Howell 200T cameras are also not c-mount, or if this is a point of difference between the russian copy and the original.

Also, according to the Wiki article on the 200EE the kodak magazines require double per film. This is odd as the russian cartridges that came with the Kiev seem to work with single perf film. Can anyone confirm wether the kodak magazines do indeed require double perf or if there are some that do and some that don't or just what the situation is.

many thanks,

richard

[Charles MacDonald]

Russian Kiev 16 C-3. It is a copy of the Bell and Howell 200T.

So I'd like to find out if the original Bell and Howell 200T cameras are also not c-mount,

 

The magazine load filmos that I have (just marked 16mm Magazine Camera 200) use a c-mount. in fact I swiped one of the lenses to fill out the turret on my 70DR

 

 

Also, according to the Wiki article on the 200EE the kodak magazines require double per film. This is odd as the russian cartridges that came with the Kiev seem to work with single perf film. Can anyone confirm wether the kodak magazines do indeed require double perf

 

I have opened a couple of The Kodak mags up. There is a central sprocket that is double perf. The film passes that sprocket twice and the sprocket runs part of the mechanism..

[Richard Tuohy]

Thanks charles,

so the russian cartridges are different form the Kodak ones. Curious, but handy.

and the russian copy has a different mount to the Bell and Howell. Curious, but handy that the B & H is a c-mount.

cheers,

richard

[Philippe Lignieres]

Hi Richard,

found that old post.

I am very interseted too in these little autoload 200.

I learn here that Kiev magazines are single perf and fit the Bell & Howell.

Did you used your Kiev, and reloaded magazines by your own ?

I know that reloading 200 magazines is a bit tricky, perhaps easier with the Kiev's ?

Cheers,

Philippe

(Sète/France)

[Gary Davis]

The Bell & Howell 200 cameras use standard C-mount lenses, HOWEVER, they also require a matching viewfinder lens.  I've used a single 25mm viewfinder lens as a guide for a variety of C-mount lenses (12-75mm) and this works to some extent.  I've also had some problems with the interlock mechanism of the B&H jamming - I've had better reliability from a Kodak magazine camera that doesn't take C-mount lenses (but that camera has a zoom viewfinder for all lenses 15-152mm).

The Kodak (B&H) magazines were designed for double-perf film and others have reported poor results trying to use single-perf film, HOWEVER, the Kodak camera appears to give a full, clean image between the sprocket holes on the left, making a 2:1 aspect ratio crop possible.

The Film Photography Project (April 2024) sells 16mm mags in 7 different stocks, and a mag costs $80-$100 including processing and scanning by FPP.  This is great news for people who want to use these cameras, but, FPP's processing service is unbearably slow... about six weeks... and the quality is not great.  The B&W reversal, in particular, was mottled and quite dirty.  However, some people feel this adds to the vintage look!

Here's a look at my first two mags from FPP - B&W reversal and Ektachrome.  My 2:1 attempt will be developed sometime mid-May.

--Gary

 

[Dennis Toeppen]

Revere 36 has much better registration and is much more reliable than B&H 200. They're fairly easy to find on the big shitty auction site. You'll likely have to lube the camera once you get it.

I've shot at least 70 mags of film in B&H 200 (~3 different cameras) and probably 20 in Revere. Revere blows away the 200.

You can buy 2R film from FPP (or from EK if you're willing to buy 20 x 400' rolls) and have retrocine.com load it into mags for you. Then send it to Spectra for developing and scanning. FPP sends their film to Spectra. If you send it directly, you'll save a bunch of time. 

I have a couple thousand feet of 2R Tri-X 16mm that I'm willing to sell for $1.75/foot 1000' on core.

There's nothing wrong with FPP. I don't mean to imply that.

Edited April 19 by Dennis Toeppen

[Jon O'Brien]

I got an almost pristine-looking B&H 240 camera a few months back and it has noticeable gate weave. Otherwise, surprisingly, such a great looking image with the Wollensak lens I used on it. Absolutely crystal clear and sharp as a tack despite some weaving. If I can figure out how to steady the image that would be great. I used DR to steady up the image in post. Different camera of course but I wonder if the B&H 16mm cameras that were made for the amateur home movie market have less stable registration generally than similar cameras in that class. I won't be getting any more 240s any time soon.

Edited April 20 by Jon O'Brien

[Gary Davis]

The B&H 200 appears to have an interlock so it won't run if the door is open.  Does anyone know anything about this?  It may be jammed in one of my cameras (doesn't run) or intermittent in the other (tends to jam until door is opened).  thanks!  --Gary