Looking for Konvas or small-ish 35mm camera (ideally hand cranked)

[Fabrice Ducouret]

I'd like to upgrade from my hand cranked camera which is often getting jammed and isn't reflex.
I mostly do street cinematography and experimental short films with low budgets so I'm open to any offer ?

Thanks

[Frank Wylie]

And your current camera is .... what?

Typically, a reflex camera is very awkward  to hand crank;  they simply are not designed ergonomically for that function.

I cannot recall any reflex 35mm camera that would fit your purpose.

[Aapo Lettinen]

I have some Konvases and the 1KCP model with the straight viewfinder fits closest the description but I don't think it is good for handheld shooting when handcranking, it would just wobble the camera uncontrollably to try to crank it. If shooting on a tripod or some kind of should support the hand cranking could work fine, but... the 1KCP body has a centrifugal speed stabilizer built in because it is originally meant to be used with a spring motor if electric motor is not available. One could set the centrifugal stabilizer to the wanted speed and hand crank at "relatively" stable speed with much smaller fluctuations in speed and much less "handcranked look".

Personally I would just use every and all Konvas models with the electric motors and avoid the hand cranks at all costs in handheld style shooting scenarios. On tripod they may work in some situations but I don't think the cameras fit to handheld handcrank shooting scenarios very well and you will get disappointed by the bad ergonomics and difficult operating.

Konvases with electric motors and 60m magazines work perfectly for street photography style shooting. they are small cameras and fast to operate. orientable finders of the 1M and 2M help with handheld ergonomics and are almost mandatory for low angles but you should be pretty OK even with the straight viewfinder older models if always shooting from eye level

[Aapo Lettinen]

This is the Konvas I have used the most for "street photography style" shooting scenarios. the hand crank is for reference and mounts in place of the motor mounting plate, I don't use it for actual shooting. as you can see the crank is position is very awkward for handheld shooting and you have great difficulties trying to hold the camera steady enough with one hand without having any kind of handle on the other side.

With the electric motor the ergonomics are actually pretty good because the motor acts as a handle to hold the camera and you can support it with both hands to keep it stable. Here is my favourite setup with 7.2v airsoft battery mounted with velcro pads, the rheostat electric motor, the 60m magazine with core adapters to use Western 2"  cores and with the cores can fit about 45 meters of film. I is the straight viewfinder 1KCP model with side latch magazines. The lenses mounted are 35, 50, 135 with the 135 possible to use with resting the camera on stable object. But quite often I just take the 35 lens only and leave the rest at home. You would likely use the 28/2 and 35/2 lenses most often with the camera. the 35 is much easier to find in good condition so I would start with that

Edited April 11, 2023 by aapo lettinen

[Frank Wylie]

If you want to emulate the so-called "hand-cranked look", you don't actually have to hand-crank the camera.

First of all, it's a misnomer if you are referring to the pulsing-density type of artifact of some surviving copies of Classic-Era Silent Films.  That is not a byproduct of irregular hand-cranking, but a function of how either the negative or positive film was processed on either a Rack and Tank or a pin reel developing system.

I have graded/timed over 600 features from the Nitrate era and can tell that when the camera original negative survives of a general release feature, practically NONE of them exhibit this fluctuating density unless we are copying a sole-source element of a print. 

In either method of film developing, the pulsing density is a result of higher developer velocity over the edge of the supporting rack or pin.  Anyone who has developed film in a darkroom is familiar with the problem of agitation/turbulation artifacts.  With increased agitation comes increased contact with fresh developer, thus higher density.  Sections of the film that are not over these pins or rank ends, do not receive the same amount of agitation, thus less fresh developer hits the film surface and produces slightly lower densities.  This results in a repeating pattern of higher density that is misinterpreted as irregular hand cranking speeds in a camera.

Think about it:  99.9% of silent, 35mm hand-cranked cameras were driven by a crank on a 8:1 drive shaft.  Every turn of the handle passed 8 frames through the gate;  two cranks a second were the baseline standard for cranking a silent film camera.

Now try to translate that to the typical 3 to 4 foot distance between pulses; it just doesn't make physical sense.

A favorite trick of mine is to take a section of a print with those pulses and loop it back onto itself to determine just how large the developing rack was that processed the film we copied.

So why are their so many examples of this pulsing in Silent Era Films that survive?

It's simple, so many only survived as release prints with the built-in density fluctuations and the artifact is propagated by copying these prints.

Why did so many prints have this fluctuation?  Like any time in motion picture history, the hierarchy of importance of cost and skill diminishes as you get farther away from the actual production of the original negative. 

Why didn't the negative have these fluctuations?  There are a number of reasons;  #1.  There was much more care taken with the camera original negative; often supervised directly by the camera person who shot it.  #2. There were specialized racks for developing camera original negative that could physically expand and contract via a screw or lever system during use to vary where the rack slat crossed over the film, thereby minimizing any density pulsations.  #3.  The gamma/contrast level of a camera original is typically lower than 1.0, minimizing relative contrast differences in exposure gradients as compared to base+fog.

The production may spend lavishly on actual shooting, processing of the camera original and everything else up to the release printing stage and then generally the emphasis on quality is overridden by the need/desire to economize making the exhibition media (i.e., the release print).

Need to make 50 or 100 prints in a week for a general release?  Guess what, the deadline will override the desire for ultimate quality control and then the parameters will be loosened to meet the deadline.  Prints will be churned-out and standards will be lowered to meet the deadline.  Fixed racks would have been used and the higher gamma (well over 2.0) of the positive developer, often combined with higher developer temperatures to speed production, would emphasize any density variations on the print.

Are there examples of fluctuating negatives?  Yes!  Some examples exist in very low budget features and 35mm home movies; rich people's home movies shot on unmounted, miniature hand cranked 35mm cameras like the Zeiss Icon Kinamo, but even there the camera weaves and bobs so violently that it is practically unwatchable.

There are also examples of rapid density pulses in negatives that must be attributed to pin-rack development.  These typically exhibit a violently pulsing image due to the closely spaced pins of the rack for the same reason as the long rack; overly enthusiastic agitation.  You tend to see this most often in VERY early actualities of 30 to 40 feet of length (1899-1902) when a full camera load could be processed on a single pin rack.

Anyway, this is getting too long and frankly, even the so-called "film preservation schools" still teach the "uneven cranking" meme to their students, so it's a losing battle in the end...

So, if you want the "hand-cranked" look, shoot with a spring wound camera or electric motor camera and look into processing your film with a rack and tank or pin-rack based developing system, use a high energy developer and agitate the crap out of the film. 

Viola, instant "Silent Film".

[Fabrice Ducouret]

On 4/12/2023 at 5:32 AM, Frank Wylie said:

If you want to emulate the so-called "hand-cranked look", you don't actually have to hand-crank the camera.

First of all, it's a misnomer if you are referring to the pulsing-density type of artifact of some surviving copies of Classic-Era Silent Films.  That is not a byproduct of irregular hand-cranking, but a function of how either the negative or positive film was processed on either a Rack and Tank or a pin reel developing system.

I have graded/timed over 600 features from the Nitrate era and can tell that when the camera original negative survives of a general release feature, practically NONE of them exhibit this fluctuating density unless we are copying a sole-source element of a print. 

In either method of film developing, the pulsing density is a result of higher developer velocity over the edge of the supporting rack or pin.  Anyone who has developed film in a darkroom is familiar with the problem of agitation/turbulation artifacts.  With increased agitation comes increased contact with fresh developer, thus higher density.  Sections of the film that are not over these pins or rank ends, do not receive the same amount of agitation, thus less fresh developer hits the film surface and produces slightly lower densities.  This results in a repeating pattern of higher density that is misinterpreted as irregular hand cranking speeds in a camera.

Think about it:  99.9% of silent, 35mm hand-cranked cameras were driven by a crank on a 8:1 drive shaft.  Every turn of the handle passed 8 frames through the gate;  two cranks a second were the baseline standard for cranking a silent film camera.

Now try to translate that to the typical 3 to 4 foot distance between pulses; it just doesn't make physical sense.

A favorite trick of mine is to take a section of a print with those pulses and loop it back onto itself to determine just how large the developing rack was that processed the film we copied.

So why are their so many examples of this pulsing in Silent Era Films that survive?

It's simple, so many only survived as release prints with the built-in density fluctuations and the artifact is propagated by copying these prints.

Why did so many prints have this fluctuation?  Like any time in motion picture history, the hierarchy of importance of cost and skill diminishes as you get farther away from the actual production of the original negative. 

Why didn't the negative have these fluctuations?  There are a number of reasons;  #1.  There was much more care taken with the camera original negative; often supervised directly by the camera person who shot it.  #2. There were specialized racks for developing camera original negative that could physically expand and contract via a screw or lever system during use to vary where the rack slat crossed over the film, thereby minimizing any density pulsations.  #3.  The gamma/contrast level of a camera original is typically lower than 1.0, minimizing relative contrast differences in exposure gradients as compared to base+fog.

The production may spend lavishly on actual shooting, processing of the camera original and everything else up to the release printing stage and then generally the emphasis on quality is overridden by the need/desire to economize making the exhibition media (i.e., the release print).

Need to make 50 or 100 prints in a week for a general release?  Guess what, the deadline will override the desire for ultimate quality control and then the parameters will be loosened to meet the deadline.  Prints will be churned-out and standards will be lowered to meet the deadline.  Fixed racks would have been used and the higher gamma (well over 2.0) of the positive developer, often combined with higher developer temperatures to speed production, would emphasize any density variations on the print.

Are there examples of fluctuating negatives?  Yes!  Some examples exist in very low budget features and 35mm home movies; rich people's home movies shot on unmounted, miniature hand cranked 35mm cameras like the Zeiss Icon Kinamo, but even there the camera weaves and bobs so violently that it is practically unwatchable.

There are also examples of rapid density pulses in negatives that must be attributed to pin-rack development.  These typically exhibit a violently pulsing image due to the closely spaced pins of the rack for the same reason as the long rack; overly enthusiastic agitation.  You tend to see this most often in VERY early actualities of 30 to 40 feet of length (1899-1902) when a full camera load could be processed on a single pin rack.

Anyway, this is getting too long and frankly, even the so-called "film preservation schools" still teach the "uneven cranking" meme to their students, so it's a losing battle in the end...

So, if you want the "hand-cranked" look, shoot with a spring wound camera or electric motor camera and look into processing your film with a rack and tank or pin-rack based developing system, use a high energy developer and agitate the crap out of the film. 

Viola, instant "Silent Film".

I am not trying to emulate that style at all. I just like a light manual setup personally

I find that batteries often add a long list of cumbersome considerations that I would rather do without. They have a short lifespan, you always have to charge them, they add a lot of weight to your set up, they can blow up if you store them somewhere too humid or in the sunlight for too long, and there is always a risk that you run out of battery in the middle of a project, you have to schlep adapters if you travel abroad, etc. If there was a way to make a miniaturized version of the Konvas battery, it might be a different story. I don’t really have that kind of budget though.
 

I don’t have any motion film cameras that use batteries, except super 8 mm cameras that use AA batteries that I can easily find anywhere in case they die during a project and they don’t add much weight to the total mass of equipment. For 16 mm I use a Webo and a Beaulieu - love both but prefer the baseplate and center of gravity of the Webo - which can be handcranked or wound up for constant framerate. 

[Fabrice Ducouret]

On 4/11/2023 at 3:04 PM, aapo lettinen said:

This is the Konvas I have used the most for "street photography style" shooting scenarios. the hand crank is for reference and mounts in place of the motor mounting plate, I don't use it for actual shooting. as you can see the crank is position is very awkward for handheld shooting and you have great difficulties trying to hold the camera steady enough with one hand without having any kind of handle on the other side.

With the electric motor the ergonomics are actually pretty good because the motor acts as a handle to hold the camera and you can support it with both hands to keep it stable. Here is my favourite setup with 7.2v airsoft battery mounted with velcro pads, the rheostat electric motor, the 60m magazine with core adapters to use Western 2"  cores and with the cores can fit about 45 meters of film. I is the straight viewfinder 1KCP model with side latch magazines. The lenses mounted are 35, 50, 135 with the 135 possible to use with resting the camera on stable object. But quite often I just take the 35 lens only and leave the rest at home. You would likely use the 28/2 and 35/2 lenses most often with the camera. the 35 is much easier to find in good condition so I would start with that

This is definitely one of the solutions I am considering, even though I do not love the idea of depending on batteries, cf my other reply. But it is very hard for me to find konvas cameras for sale, especially since I would love to have the option to use batteries or the crank. Not sure what a good marketplace to look for one would be? 

[Dom Jaeger]

37 minutes ago, Fabrice Ducouret said:

I am not trying to emulate that style at all. I just like a light manual setup personally

I find that batteries often add a long list of cumbersome considerations that I would rather do without.

You don’t want to hand crank then, you want a spring motor camera.

The most obvious candidate is an Eyemo, super durable and steady.

Otherwise, for a really small package, look for a Kinamo. Just make sure it comes with the cartridge/magazine.

[Aapo Lettinen]

The straight viewfinder Konvas 1kcp has a spring motor attachment but they are extremely rare and impossible to find on sale. I have tried to purchase one for almost 10 years without luck... So if wanting a spring camera it would be necessary to use some other camera.

I have a spare orientable viewfinder Konvas 1M which I could sell. The motor is possible modify to 24v wild motor and I can make crystal sync controller for it too if needed (though will cost an extra grand). 

[Balz Auf der Maur]

Is this what you‘re looking for?

Auction

Just saw this on a local auction site here in Switzerland ?

[Fabrice Ducouret]

On 4/15/2023 at 8:57 PM, Dom Jaeger said:

You don’t want to hand crank then, you want a spring motor camera.

The most obvious candidate is an Eyemo, super durable and steady.

Otherwise, for a really small package, look for a Kinamo. Just make sure it comes with the cartridge/magazine.

Ah Eyemo, good idea. Not reflex though. 
kinamo is what I have - unfortunately it gets jammed and I cannot understand why. The takeup spool spins at the same speed although its diameter changes as the film winds around it? When it gets jammed I felt in the dark with my hands and the film was messed up in the takeup spool for some reason. If I can figure out why it’s doing that I might be able to use it more but I’m quite frustrated…

[Simon Wyss]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/352144908944?hash=item51fd78e290:g:cQEAAOSwGwFchJyh&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4IZ6DVfLdjXAri%2FSdxleBv1fet07J%2FDyIEvwng%2Ffi84nBJOZXgHjq4lc7NoL2SqTx5140a0kwYi851VNlpC3p4TXoTzdhyHWFKjNMyGbUKyWIcBgSACg6jZVvPvhO6O8%2BREZumzVxv%2B7GuyTg9qyTSx7iV9HhZZ5vVEcfMYU78CnNnngClytsN0VCkCr468ngt2SXEeYeqtZ8azzPwe7aUeFwuAAOhyiFRQqu%2BCxQUN%2FypD8PRwgbyUAjrDDz0HRUzbMGmCLFwzOq6dbfmTTWBrt6Vw3X53MSFKEjncGDSKz|tkp%3ABk9SR6raudrxYQ

[Chris Burke]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/275776622230?hash=item4035914e96:g:VF8AAOSwEvxkLFlQ&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4AulIp7OTUCcbPX2viHWH6HisBVuzI1uApZbfBJoastbfGHbyY%2FpGUU77vXhI2JIs3R6WO4tX5ug%2FSDEiBJJZx2Hio1q4bAigB32dvhjWG%2BDJK4oFxc9thmnlJ1D%2BmSbah1XDur8RMsS%2FMifA5UOmYhuLjN48Z9GZVaip5VNCgJjeRpX3QfBW2arqHGFQLFrkJ3VH6Erclv6Qyb5mnJcbk34ErxeMgijXfo0tqf7Ec9g%2Bdxgts82YI3if6IHOHYrG1o88r3y8I%2FukhADJrM4Q3vbhlvq%2FxEFIFWTqrmZGu0m|tkp%3ABk9SR-CIi-7xYQ

[Chris Burke]

I only suggested the camera listed above as a possible rebuild platform. But seeing the camera that is for sale on the Swiss site Ricardo, I would go for that. I shoot in a similar style and can see why you have the requirements you do. My only drawback  (for an Eyemo) is the small loads. How do you deal with it? Am I wrong or is that a 100 foot load? 

[Dom Jaeger]

7 hours ago, Fabrice Ducouret said:

kinamo is what I have - unfortunately it gets jammed and I cannot understand why. The takeup spool spins at the same speed although its diameter changes as the film winds around it? When it gets jammed I felt in the dark with my hands and the film was messed up in the takeup spool for some reason. If I can figure out why it’s doing that I might be able to use it more but I’m quite frustrated…

The take up should slip as the film winds on. If it’s too easy to slip, any obstruction in the magazine throat or in the loop could cause it to slip too much and not take up properly. Or if the take up spindle is sticky from dried lubricant the take up may not be turning properly. Run the camera with the door and mag lid off, using dummy film, and observe what’s happening. 

[Simon Wyss]

2 hours ago, Chris Burke said:

My only drawback for an Eyemo is the small loads. How do you deal with it? Am I wrong or is that a 100 foot load? 

Eyemo takes film on H spools, H for hundred foot.

Kodak Technical Pan was available as 150-ft. loads. On so-called maximum capacity spools that have a core diameter of ¾ inch and an OD of 3.74 inches or 95 mm you can wind 185 foot of a stock not thicker than 0,12 mm (0.00473"). That gives full two minutes at speed 24 plus ample leader for threading. Just throw your jacket over the feed spool until film is laced up.

[Aapo Lettinen]

6 hours ago, Chris Burke said:

 But seeing the camera that is for sale on the Swiss site Ricardo, I would go for that.

I was going to propose a simpler very basic Konvas 1M setup with a "wild motor" 24v modified 15epss motor and just one lens and the smallest 60m mag. This kind of setup could cost something like 800 or 900 in working condition with one lens and with enough basic crude CLA that it can be used for occasional shooting of a roll or two every now and then. (of course a person might expect the camera to be in top notch condition even if only shooting with it once a year. but that is definitely not needed for experimental stuff and there is better cameras for the same use if one wants to spend many thousands on camera and lens kit and full professional overhaul. by my opinion, the Konvases are best as experimental tools and just in the condition the Soviet Union meant them to be; a little dirty inside and the case used for hauling potatoes ? )

Edited April 17, 2023 by aapo lettinen

[Eric Schleicher]

Just sent you a DM about a few Konvas 2m's I have available

[Fabrice Ducouret]

On 4/17/2023 at 4:43 AM, Dom Jaeger said:

The take up should slip as the film winds on. If it’s too easy to slip, any obstruction in the magazine throat or in the loop could cause it to slip too much and not take up properly. Or if the take up spindle is sticky from dried lubricant the take up may not be turning properly. Run the camera with the door and mag lid off, using dummy film, and observe what’s happening. 

Ah, your comment made me rethink my loading techniques on the Kinamo...
I think that there were a couple of issues in how I was loading the film in the cassette (but of course I do it all in the dark) - I think one of the issues was that the film wasn't spooling around the core in a way that is perfectly flat, and that might have caused friction - another issue is that the film around the feeder core would expand like a spring and fill un the top part of the cassette and the last - but most significant issue is that the film wasn't secured to the take up spool properly enough and the take up spool wouldn't pull the film in properly as a result. 

I tried fixing all these issues and taped the film securely to the take up spool, and the camera has been running smoothly since...

[Pilvari Pirtola]

On 4/16/2023 at 10:03 AM, aapo lettinen said:

The straight viewfinder Konvas 1kcp has a spring motor attachment but they are extremely rare and impossible to find on sale. I have tried to purchase one for almost 10 years without luck... So if wanting a spring camera it would be necessary to use some other camera.

I have a spare orientable viewfinder Konvas 1M which I could sell. The motor is possible modify to 24v wild motor and I can make crystal sync controller for it too if needed (though will cost an extra grand). 

wow, never realized that the spring motor that came with my kcp-1 is so rare. is the animation crank rare as well?
unfortunately I broke the electric motor on kcp1 and then the tech that was supposed to try to fix it, lost that one and also 18ep motor for 1M as well.

 

[Aapo Lettinen]

1 hour ago, Pilvari Pirtola said:

wow, never realized that the spring motor that came with my kcp-1 is so rare. is the animation crank rare as well?
unfortunately I broke the electric motor on kcp1 and then the tech that was supposed to try to fix it, lost that one and also 18ep motor for 1M as well.

 

yes they are very rare. I think I have exactly once seen one on sale but it was immediately sold so did not have possibility to buy it. The normal manual crank (not animation one but the one which attaches in place of the spring motor and enables continuous shooting) can be found every now and then on eBay.

I am able to convert the 15epss motors to crystal sync if you ever need a crystal motor for the 1M.   If for some reason you happen to have a camera body which uses the 4-teeth rubber axle connector on the motor axle instead of the traditional 2-prong metal coupler, I have a spare 4-teeth 15epss drive which is possible to modify and sell

[Pilvari Pirtola]

44 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

yes they are very rare. I think I have exactly once seen one on sale but it was immediately sold so did not have possibility to buy it. The normal manual crank (not animation one but the one which attaches in place of the spring motor and enables continuous shooting) can be found every now and then on eBay.

I am able to convert the 15epss motors to crystal sync if you ever need a crystal motor for the 1M.   If for some reason you happen to have a camera body which uses the 4-teeth rubber axle connector on the motor axle instead of the traditional 2-prong metal coupler, I have a spare 4-teeth 15epss drive which is possible to modify and sell

I'll contact you when I find a good deal for an 15epss, crystal sync would be really nice. The 1M body I have is with the usual 2-prong metal coupler. 

[Aapo Lettinen]

21 hours ago, Pilvari Pirtola said:

I'll contact you when I find a good deal for an 15epss, crystal sync would be really nice. The 1M body I have is with the usual 2-prong metal coupler. 

there is one of those 15epss motors on ebay right now  https://www.ebay.com/itm/385571336043?hash=item59c5d7af6b:g:Pa4AAOSwKu1kGrSd&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4A7cR8kKATpKy2wz78X9y2W66tAKBkuBsli8uYmo51WKksb0zrAQZbtMSeYwQT0PkPIzzGKsmBj4xdVuLUZzVwTS%2B9zF0QKMHLhxl%2BF3XuOgOjZKRVRI0DHEIj2XAFwzk0%2BebsIzpPOddD8XnlDqzGQI3JA6p2skcosGxPFznwnmLAgC7N%2B%2FRgyhPQzS8q%2FczgNkGSYBf15JKrB0LEXqQ%2Fj0Mqth4V20U5qFPjPXHOagxWNOzLrbfSPHPsDXHjGhyLzcplEMywXgPfs6XSziyC9Un%2BCTZKhO6XQkCTgtwLuo|tkp%3ABk9SR7Lyn9H3YQ

[Pilvari Pirtola]

2 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

there is one of those 15epss motors on ebay right now  https://www.ebay.com/itm/385571336043?hash=item59c5d7af6b:g:Pa4AAOSwKu1kGrSd&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4A7cR8kKATpKy2wz78X9y2W66tAKBkuBsli8uYmo51WKksb0zrAQZbtMSeYwQT0PkPIzzGKsmBj4xdVuLUZzVwTS%2B9zF0QKMHLhxl%2BF3XuOgOjZKRVRI0DHEIj2XAFwzk0%2BebsIzpPOddD8XnlDqzGQI3JA6p2skcosGxPFznwnmLAgC7N%2B%2FRgyhPQzS8q%2FczgNkGSYBf15JKrB0LEXqQ%2Fj0Mqth4V20U5qFPjPXHOagxWNOzLrbfSPHPsDXHjGhyLzcplEMywXgPfs6XSziyC9Un%2BCTZKhO6XQkCTgtwLuo|tkp%3ABk9SR7Lyn9H3YQ

I actually already tried to contact that seller but they replied that they are on vacation until June or something...  

[Aapo Lettinen]

1 hour ago, Pilvari Pirtola said:

I actually already tried to contact that seller but they replied that they are on vacation until June or something...  

If the OP is not interested in purchasing my spare Konvas body, then it would be possible to trade your camera body to the 4teeth body+motor I have and crystal mod that motor instead. the mags and viewfinder can be just swapped between bodies so you would only need to pay for the motor and the crystal mod