Super 8 or Super16 Newbie alert!

Lyn Ciampa · February 23, 2014

I have decided to enter the realm of film.
I am a horticulturist/landscaper and I will be shooting plants and landscapes (no further than a 'street scene')

SO, I would like:

single frame/cable release cabability

Electronic

Stellar resolution and durability (In case it falls off a mini tripod when shooting a rock or leaf- I don't want the camera to shatter into a million pieces. Also I live in wyoming and the wind blows something fierce so it can't be a dust magnet)
approx 100.00 for a camera lenses and lens caps

I decided against 8mm because the 11sec/roll of film would drive me nuts

it seems that for:

resolution and detail I would want a 16mm

for portability I would want an 8mm

What i've read so far recommend Bolex and Canon

Any thoughts?

Thanbks

Adrian Sierkowski · February 23, 2014

I think for what you're doing you'd want a stills camera which has a timelapse mode-- but you're not going to find much of anything for $100.

Lyn Ciampa · February 23, 2014

Thanks for the quick reply
I already have a still camera.
I install water features so I will be filming those, I also would like to use the video for shooting animals and such in the landscapes and I am looking for that 1970's home movie film look

Dan Dorland · February 24, 2014

For the 16mm option I'd recommend a Krasnogorsk-3. It has single frame shooting, and a body + the usual 17-69mm lens can definitely be found for $100 on eBay, and sometimes on craigslist. However for the 70's home movie look, go no further than a Super 8mm camera. Film stocks nowadays are so good, that it would be very hard to get a home movie look from 16mm IMO. Even Super 8 can look too good with the right scan.

it seems that for:

resolution and detail I would want a 16mm

for portability I would want an 8mm

...

and I am looking for that 1970's home movie film look

Adrian Sierkowski · February 24, 2014

K3 is a good choice; but doesn't allow for timelapse. I don't know if it has a cable release, and certainly isn't electronic.

Lyn Ciampa · February 24, 2014

I'm looking at these

http://www.ebay.com/itm/261403155730?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Bauer C 107 XL Super 8 Movie Camera Macro Neovaron 7-45mm 1:1.2

(I am told Bauer's excel in low light)

Beaulieu 2008 Super 8MM Camera w/Angenieux 8-64MM. f/1.9 Zoom Lens

http://www.ebay.com/itm/271384799135?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

and here is the only K3 I found (on Ebay, that is) is it a good one?

KRASNOGORSK-3 16mm AMATEUR CINE CAMARA

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-KRASNOGORSK-3-16mm-AMATEUR-CINE-CAMARA-/201042162426?pt=US_Vintage_Cameras&hash=item2ecf0bf2fa

Thanks,

Lyn

Edited February 24, 2014 by Lyn Ciampa

Dan Dorland · February 24, 2014

K3 is a good choice; but doesn't allow for timelapse. I don't know if it has a cable release, and certainly isn't electronic.

Well, it does allow for timelapse if you either buy a separate motor to do it like this one: http://www.k3camera.com/k3/krasnogorsk-intervalometer-time-lapse.php

or stand there for hours with the cable release, but that is very impractical.

Will Montgomery · February 25, 2014

K3 is a good choice; but doesn't allow for timelapse. I don't know if it has a cable release, and certainly isn't electronic.

It has a cable release but not sure about single frame. The cable screws into the "on" button in the front. Allows you to put it on a tripod and use the cable release to run it so you don't shake the camera.

Ian Cooper · February 25, 2014

It has a cable release but not sure about single frame. The cable screws into the "on" button in the front. Allows you to put it on a tripod and use the cable release to run it so you don't shake the camera.

The cable release socket on the front of the trigger button allows you to 'run' the camera with a release. Opposite this on the rear of the camera is another release socket that triggers single-frame exposure.

Although it worked on my camera, I have read that it can be very stiff or even seized on some. I also understand the exposure can be a bit variable as the clockwork spring unwinds.

Lyn Ciampa · February 25, 2014

Thanks,

I am leaning towards 16mm as the film prices and processing seem to be comparable to S8 anyway and 16mm offers better resolution.

the K3 looks like a good bet, and I am also looking at these:

Eumig C16

http://r.ebay.com/pBWnAX

Beaulieu 2008

http://r.ebay.com/8Opr6Z

Bauer C 107 XL (8mm, but I am told that 'XL' in camera model numbers indicate low light capabilities. Is this correct?)
http://r.ebay.com/FxW4iE

Bolex (I like the side mounted viewfinder)

http://r.ebay.com/36iOuo

Gregg MacPherson · February 25, 2014

Bolex (I like the side mounted viewfinder)

http://r.ebay.com/36iOuo

Some early Bolex cameras were non reflex. The top finder views through the top lens then you have to rack that lens over to the shooting position. The side finders are not reflex. I found this type a pain in the ass.

Dom Jaeger · February 26, 2014

$100 won't get you much in 16mm if you want a decent lens as well as a camera. That Bolex is ancient, from the 40s, and only takes double perf film which is special order these days. The chances of it working perfectly are about as good as the chances of a 1940s car still driving well after decades in a garage.

You might find a K3 that cheap, and it might work OK, but they're not really suitable for single frame - the shutter is an angled mirror which will leak light through to the film if you spend too long between shots without capping the lens. The best film cameras for single frame animation or timelapse are ones that use a focal plane shutter (that sits flush over the gate) which is better at preventing light from leaking around to the film. Bolexes were often used for animation because of this, but a newer, reflex model with prime lenses or a zoom will cost at least several hundred dollars. If you don't want to manually trigger a timelapse sequence (very likely) you'd also need a timelapse motor for a Bolex, which can easily be several hundred dollars more.

Your budget is better suited to a Super 8 camera, maybe one of those Nizos that has a built-in intervalometer for timelapse.

Lyn Ciampa · February 26, 2014

The Eumig link was bad. This one should work:

http://r.ebay.com/1MIRe7

How about this Nizo:
http://r.ebay.com/YKNtTG

Edited February 26, 2014 by Lyn Ciampa

David Cunningham · February 26, 2014

Take it from someone who has tried all the super cheap cameras. You'll just find yourself frustrated and disappointed. You really need to be willing to spend $400 or more and get something with a decent reflex viewfinder and lens.

Non reflex and/or bad (small and dark) reflex are just too frustrating to use. Don't bother with anything below a Rex4 or you'll go blind trying to pull or guess focus.

Lyn Ciampa · February 26, 2014

It looks like I need to go up to 200$.

Lyn Ciampa · February 26, 2014

400 is too much. If I wait I a week could go up to 280$. I will add a Reflex viewfinder to what I will need.
So far it's
16mm (preferred- because of the better resolution Is this correct?
Reflex viewfinder

Single frame/cable release capable

proficient in Low light
not dust sensitive

Adrian Sierkowski · February 26, 2014

Film resolution is an iffy thing. It's not really like a digital sensor. While 16mm may have higher resolution if you're comparing a 50D in that and 8mm, a 500T 16mm will probably have much worse than a 50D in 8mm-- it all depend. What you're really talking about is granularity-- e.g. how large the grain is on the film, and that too is a function not only of the stock, but it's age, handling, and development as well as the ratio of enlargement (8mm might look better on an iphone than say 16mm on the big screen).

That all said, yes you're likely to be looking at 16mm, and I would highly recommend getting a good camera-- hold off on buying it for a bit, prices are always coming down, and they aren't going anywhere. Plus ANY camera you get will need to be serviced, or at least looked over, which will add a few hundred to the cost before you even go out and buy/process and transfer your first foot of film.

I'm not sure, as I haven't checked recently, but I would wager, 16mm is cheaper per foot overall than 8mm since there are more labs which deal with it-- especially for high quality HD scanning.

Also every film camera is to a certain extent dust sensitive-- and also hair and film crap sensitive. On the bigger badder cameras we often pull the lens off after a set up and check to make sure there's no schmutz in the gate before we move on. I can pretty much guarantee on an 8mm or a clockwork 16mm camera you'll have schmutz in the gate it's part and parcel of how they are generally handled/loaded/film packed ect.