How much worse is operating the arricam studio handheld compared to the life?

[Edith blazek]

Ok, I found multiple arricam studio cameras for insanely low prices and that include shoulder pads to use handheld so Arri clearly did think people were going to use the studio handheld as well as the lite, but I just want to know, how much worse is the handheld experience compared to the lite? I know it's heavier, but at the same time I'm not convinced it's heavier to a degree that would significantly make it worse as in my view, I wouldn't want to use either of these cameras handheld extensively but hey, maybe I'm wrong, so those with experience, let me know.

[Tyler Purcell]

I mean, the studio is very heavy. You wouldn't be able to pick it up and put it on your shoulder with a 1000ft magazine, lens, mattebox and such without help. The LT with a 400ft mag is a lot better, but it's still very heavy. It's why I went with the Aaton 35III. In 3 perf it's quiet enough (30db) and it's not any larger than a Aaton XTR Prod, around 4lb heavier due to more film and bigger lenses than the 16mm version. 

[Edith blazek]

29 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I mean, the studio is very heavy. You wouldn't be able to pick it up and put it on your shoulder with a 1000ft magazine, lens, mattebox and such without help. The LT with a 400ft mag is a lot better, but it's still very heavy. It's why I went with the Aaton 35III. In 3 perf it's quiet enough (30db) and it's not any larger than a Aaton XTR Prod, around 4lb heavier due to more film and bigger lenses than the 16mm version. 

Wait, do you still use the Aaton 35III? I thought it was not a good buy because servicing on both hardware and software is impossible, is it not?

[Daniel Klockenkemper]

Hi Edith,

I did a fair amount of operating with the Moviecam Compact, which is quite similar to the Arricam ST, and have used the LT a bit as well.  I'd agree with your assessment - neither is a mirrorless digital camera, so in the grand scheme of things they're not dissimilar.  All film cameras are heavier on the shoulder, so do weight training, wear a back brace, all the usual precautions for the physical aspect.  Both LT and ST will require a proper high-end tripod and head, so there's no practical difference there either.

Unless it was absolutely necessary to shave every ounce for some reason, I'd probably prefer to have the ST.  It's entirely possible to have a lighter ST build with a prime lens and 400ft magazine.  Productions that demand the LT often end up bulding it up with 1000ft magazine, studio zoom, etc. anyway and it loses whatever advantage it had over the ST.  I'd rather have the flexibility to mount the magazine on top and a little more room on the body, both inside and outside.  And the ST's increased mass should help it run a little more quietly, too!

[Tyler Purcell]

13 hours ago, Edith blazek said:

Wait, do you still use the Aaton 35III? I thought it was not a good buy because servicing on both hardware and software is impossible, is it not?

I recently sold mine, but I still think it's a good camera and inexpensive for what you get. 

[Tyler Purcell]

Also, if you don't mind 4 perf (as they are nearly impossible to find 3 perf) but the Moviecam SL first generation is very good. It's a bit heavy, but it's small and compact, especially with the 400ft magazines. It's also quiet enough for sync sound recording.