Some questions about 16mm camera choices

[Sam Risley]

Hello everyone,

I am currently making the daunting transition from digital to film. I am looking to purchase a 16mm film camera and decided to put my questions to you lot, who clearly know quite a bit more than I do about shooting on film. I think the reason I am finding it difficult to decide what camera to go for is I have a quite limited budget, I need the camera to be super 16, motorised for long takes and preferably with synch sound. So you see I want all the best bits for as little money as possible! I have got as far as going either the Bolex route or an Eclair, either ACL or NPR, any with a super 16 modification. 

Does anyone here firstly have any advice for what is a good camera to choose on a limited budget? And then does anyone know anyone, or anywhere I might be able to purchase one through? And what sort of price do people think is fair these days, particularly for an eclair, it seems bolexs can be so varied. 

I usually shoot part staged, part documentary footage, with a lot of locked off shots, so a camera thats suited to shooting like this would be favoured. I would hope also to be using my Contax Zeiss lenses with the camera so assume I would need an adapter of some description. But also super open to any practical advice on lens choices. Below I have put a link to my website page that has a few stills from my most recent film just in case anyone is curious. They were shot on a BMPCC 6k.

https://www.samrisley.com/coppice

Thanks so much for reading!

Cheers, Sam

[Pavan Deep]

In my opinion an ACL would be better for sync sound than a Bolex and there are many that have been modified for Super 16.

 

[Brian Drysdale]

The Bolex is less than ideal as a sync sound camera. It's noisey and if you haven't got 400ft mags, the 100ft rolls result in alot of short ends or wasted film.

[Stephen Perera]

Aatons are superb...great form factor, easy to load

Edited May 2, 2023 by Stephen Perera

[Aapo Lettinen]

for limited budget (under about 4k or so) sync sound shooting the Eclairs seem to be the most viable option at the moment. you may need to use c-mount lenses to save enough on costs that you can afford s16 conversion and complete overhaul. The NPR is a little cheaper than ACL and might be easier to get motor for and might have slightly lower noise level but is more awkward to operate than the ACL because of the weird motor position under the body.

s16 crystal sync Bolex is still expensive (likely on par with the Eclairs) and is more awkward to operate than Eclairs and most of them are relatively unreliable nowadays as far as I have understood (failing electronics with no real repair possibilities. that is true with Eclairs too though as 50+ years old electronics just cannot be expected to last forever, no matter how well made originally).

If purchasing an Eclair, make sure that the camera includes a working viewfinder because the findesr are not sold separately and you will have a really bad time trying to custom fit another type of viewfinder to the camera body and will need machining skills and lots of tools for it.

Aatons are much better than any of these budget options but they are at least double the price and CLA/overhaul is more expensive for them so they are not "budget options", may ran closer to 10k for the whole set if working condition, S16 and has lenses and working batteries whereas the Eclairs are way under 5k even if having relatively good lenses

[Matthew J. Walker]

You will eventually spend more on film stock and development in total than the entire cost of any 16mm camera out there so go for the best that you can possibly afford.

[Gregg MacPherson]

13 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

for limited budget (under about 4k or so) sync sound shooting the Eclairs seem to be the most viable option at the moment. you may need to use c-mount lenses to save enough on costs that you can afford s16 conversion and complete overhaul. The NPR is a little cheaper than ACL and might be easier to get motor for and might have slightly lower noise level but is more awkward to operate than the ACL because of the weird motor position under the body.

s16 crystal sync Bolex is still expensive (likely on par with the Eclairs) and is more awkward to operate than Eclairs and most of them are relatively unreliable nowadays as far as I have understood (failing electronics with no real repair possibilities. that is true with Eclairs too though as 50+ years old electronics just cannot be expected to last forever, no matter how well made originally).

If purchasing an Eclair, make sure that the camera includes a working viewfinder because the findesr are not sold separately and you will have a really bad time trying to custom fit another type of viewfinder to the camera body and will need machining skills and lots of tools for it.

Aatons are much better than any of these budget options but they are at least double the price and CLA/overhaul is more expensive for them so they are not "budget options", may ran closer to 10k for the whole set if working condition, S16 and has lenses and working batteries whereas the Eclairs are way under 5k even if having relatively good lenses

Hey Aapo,
Much as I admire your efforts to design/build modern motor systems for old film cameras, there is some lack of accuracy or fuzzy generalisation creeping in here. ACLs already have enough emphatic commentators spreading inaccurate information. I don't want you to become one more of them.?

To peg a value on any camera without specific reference to its condition or service history is meaningless. Even trying to establish the value of an ACL 1.5 or 2 in good condition with known service history is difficult. Very few good ACLs are offered for sale at the moment (almost none), so not much data. The very low prices from a few years ago confuse the issue. As do a few overpriced, mediocre kits on eBay. So I counsel more caution on quoting values on the ACL cameras, and on qualifying those opinions.

Re the relative noise, NPR vs ACL. What is the evidence for that? Is it anecdotal, with one or other camera arbitrarily chosen by fate to be poorly tuned? ACL properly tuned can be very quiet. 

Re the age of these cameras...referring to Boris Belays notes, looks like the oldest ACL 1.5 may indeed be 50 years old, and the ACL 2s are between 38 and 44 years old.

Components like viewfinders are almost never offered at the moment. A few years ago, after prices started to rise again, there were a few sold. I think people are holding back on their cameras and components at the moment. The market is hard for them to interpret. But at the same time, cameras or bodies are rarely offered without a VF (I know, there is or just was an exception on eBay right now)

The notion of trying to buy a kit that has all the components you need already, mags, mounts, video tap...was a good one, even when components were more available on eBay. Now it is even more true.

Re the value of Aatons. Two were recently listed on the forum for $20K+ and $27K+. D John Carroll's one just sold for $20K. So what's an LTR 54, or a 7 worth (in good condition, with service history)? The market value of the Aatons is, in part, very well deserved, and partly just popular psychology, the tribal mood in the market.

It would be interesting to compare the historical USD prices of some of these cameras (inflation adjusted price in brackets)
- Wikipedia gives SR II in 1982 at $24K. ($70K).
- Eclair price list gives ACL II kit with 2x400' mags at $22K ($58K).
- The first Aaton LTR 7s available in NZ were about $18K ($52K), but I can't remember if that is USD or NZD, which spoils the spiel.

In NZ the Aatons arrived as the underdogs,  and maybe the low price was just to gain market entry. 

Gregg.

PS...Re good cheap lenses. For standard 16 I would be looking at old Cooke Kinetals and Schneiders..

Edited May 3, 2023 by Gregg MacPherson
added info

[Aapo Lettinen]

1 hour ago, Gregg MacPherson said:

Hey Aapo,
Much as I admire your efforts to design/build modern motor systems for old film cameras, there is some lack of accuracy or fuzzy generalisation creeping in here. ACLs already have enough emphatic commentators spreading inaccurate information. I don't want you to become one more of them.?

To peg a value on any camera without specific reference to its condition or service history is meaningless. Even trying to establish the value of an ACL 1.5 or 2 in good condition with known service history is difficult. Very few good ACLs are offered for sale at the moment (almost none), so not much data. The very low prices from a few years ago confuse the issue. As do a few overpriced, mediocre kits on eBay. So I counsel more caution on quoting values on the ACL cameras, and on qualifying those opinions.

Re the relative noise, NPR vs ACL. What is the evidence for that? Is it anecdotal, with one or other camera arbitrarily chosen by fate to be poorly tuned? ACL properly tuned can be very quiet.

generally I am trying to estimate the typical condition of a "reasonably priced" camera body which would be readily available at the moment, so not the best one but something one could likely get if purchasing stuff based on price and what the previous owner says.

When the "great condition cameras" ran out, the next best ones came on sale and they are inevitably in slightly worse condition and noisier. The issue with the ACL, as I see it, is the relatively simple pulldown + mirror mechanism which indeed would likely require lots of tuning to try to make it low noise. But the camera kits currently offered at reasonable prices (from 1 to 2.5k) are likely not in the absolutely best condition anyway to even be able to be tuned to the ultimate quietness... I mean, they have been scraping the bottom of the barrel for the past 5 years or so on any 16mm camera sales and it definitely shows in the stuff offered. Of course there is owner-operator ACL's which are in "very good condition, serviced and perfect" but people ask close to 10k for them and they are not cost effective anymore for a typical indie user who really shoots maybe one short film a year even when they would like to think they would shoot more when purchasing a camera.

the opinion about the noise level NPR vs. ACL is purely theoretical, I don't have an NPR to compare and my ACL is not in the absolute best condition so I know it is noisier than an ACL can be, but it is likely just as noisy as a typical eBay ACL is if one is given a basic CLA and cleaning. It is based on my experience that rotating mirror shutter cameras generally have much stabler running noise and they are much easier to service and tune for lower noise levels (even by just adding one drop of oil, any oil, to them), and in general tend to have lower noise to start with. so it is not empirically tested, just something I have noticed when handling lots of different "not-in-the-best-condition-but-great-price-to-quality-ratio" gear over the years.

a typical Aaton off of eBay is not silent either. It can be relatively low noise even if poorly serviced, but definitely not fully quiet... making a camera quiet needs lots of work and is thus expensive, easily burning the budget of a occasional indie filmmaker making a small movie only once or twice a year. And the camera would need to be in perfect condition to start with (not poorly managed and worn out over the years) which makes it expensive to purchase and the service price is on top of that, still not guaranteeing that it would be quiet enough in the end. So I often like to think that this kind of users try to instead get a "good price-performance ratio" kit and just live with the slight drawbacks like the higher running noise, as long as the camera otherwise works. So they would not purchase the expensive ACL/LTR/SR kit, they would try to get the mid or low priced one and get it in a somewhat tolerable running condition that they can shoot their once-a-year short films with it without it always malfunctioning and ruining the whole roll ?

[Sam Risley]

Hi everyone,

Thank you all so much for your responses. Your knowledge is super helpful! I think I am pretty set on trying to find an Eclair now. 

To be honest crystal synch is something I would love but actually lowest on my priorities. My major concern over getting a Bolex would be shooting for more than 30 seconds without the use of what seems to be both a very rare and overly heavy external motor. The eclairs also seem to have a much nicer form factor, particularly for hand held tracking shots without use of gimbals or dollys etc.

In terms of the price of the eclairs, they seem to vary through model number, whether they have been overhauled and cleaned up and whether they are super 16 or not, which all seems fair to me. I am sure I want it to be super 16 and will keep searching for one that is. Im hoping not to pay much more than 3.5 grand for it however so fingers crossed.

But yeah Stephen in a perfect world I would love to get an Aaton but a little out of my price range unfortunately. They also seem pretty hard to come by.

Thank you Aapo for your detailed advice. I will keep hunting for an affordable one with a working viewfinder. 

And your advice Micheal, of getting the best camera you can because you will spend more on film eventually, seems like very sound advice. Why put such expensive film through something thats not going to produce the best possible image!

And Gregg we have been messaging about your beautiful Acl already. A good example of one that seems perhaps a little out of my price range but for justified reasons. 

Thank you all again!

 

[Aapo Lettinen]

50 minutes ago, Sam Risley said:

To be honest crystal synch is something I would love but actually lowest on my priorities. My major concern over getting a Bolex would be shooting for more than 30 seconds without the use of what seems to be both a very rare and overly heavy external motor.

if you are sure you won't need a crystal sync motor at the moment, then one of the cheapest options to get an ACL would be to purchase a camera which does not come with the original motor or has a broken original motor. then purchasing only the motor part of my ACL crystal motor update to run the camera "wild". you could purchase the 16-speed crystal controller later if needed or a different type of controller for it (for example a 12-speed rotary selector one) if needing crystal sync.

the "wild" motor kit would be around 450 - 500usd + shipping depending on what kind of control knob accessory box is needed. That would allow running the camera "wild". It only has manual inching using a screwdriver and you would need to use 20v or 24v batteries but if looking for a budget wild motor option it would be pretty budget friendly option. Crystal controller added later would cost from 600 to 800usd extra depending on what kind of controller it is, but the great part is that it is a new motor desing and thus they are available and I can make more of them if needed (in comparison with the original motors which are very rarely sold separately and which are most often broken and irrepairable or may broke down after couple of years of use even if working now)

because the camera kit itself would be much cheaper (likely from 1k to 1.5k cheaper) if not having the original motor included, you would save enough money for S16 conversion and complete overhaul to get the other features you need

Edited May 3, 2023 by aapo lettinen

[Doug Palmer]

I'm not sure what they go for these days, a Bolex EBM might be an option.  I'm happy with mine.  So you'd get longer runs with a 400ft mag possibility as well.  Usually a bit quieter than the normal Bolex H16's, though obviously not like an Eclair,  sound sync shoooting is possible if you make a blimp or just do long-lens stuff outside.   Super-16 fairly easy to modify.