Joseph Dudek

Thanks for reply. I was looking into 16mm cameras, narrowed it down to the Bolex or K-3.

That's too bad. Still, my interest is in shooting with film, period. Even if that means getting it processed abroad at a larger cost. I don't buy into digital. I like to think even when the digital 'revolution' has come full circle - there will still be a small group of film makers who shot analog. There will always be people who value quality, the illusion of film over the convenience of digital. I hope.

Hopefully not for a while. I got decent results for searching "16mm processing uk", most labs around London.

Hey. I'm new to photography and film making. I have been involved in writing for theatre, that is the extent of my knowledge. Anyway, I want to get into making short films and I'm very interested in shooting on film, as I have always been interested in the process, the challenge and of course, the aesthetics. I have no camera knowledge past the DV/Card handhelds that I played about with as a child. Of course, shooting on 35mm is not an option for me, but I believe 16mm is within my price range - after researching the format, I noticed many good films have been shot on 16mm. My question is: as someone completely new to cinematography, and using film, do you think it is better to start off with a 35mm still film camera with interchangeable lens (probably pricey) to get used to using the format, adjusting for light, the process of printing etc, then go on to shoot on 16mm?