Jon O'Brien

When you say strong video tap, would an Arri 35-III with video tap viewfinder be adaptable to a modern production crew provided the video camera was state of the art (it's a noisy MOS camera, I know, so no good for sync sound)?

Who will service film cameras as the years go by, as most camera techs still extant are getting on in years somewhat, are they not? (well, ye know, sure the same might be said of meself, says I leaning on me shillelagh). Are the flashier, more 'electronic' models going to encounter internal problems? For instance an ST or 416 might pop a circuit board in years to come and it might be difficult to replace it. I'd think market prices for film cameras should reflect that reality.

Good to know. I like this camera as it is small, comparatively light, yet quiet. And well, can one admit it? It looks so professional!

Also, with video and AF with these small stills-type look cameras, how do you get on with audio possibly picking up lens motor noise?

I think in some cases you don't absolutely need cinema glass. It depends on your situation, and if the lenses work well for you. It will be interesting to see with AF which of the originally still camera companies like Nikon manage to make a system that works really well with video. Just need to do a lot of research. Those AF stills lenses are terrible for manual focus, the ones I've tried. They have internal motors and very short and clunky travel. And no aperture ring.

I wonder if prices will eventually go up across the board - including the old MOS models eg. Arri II. Is it a case of get back in while you can?

I don't think it's as much of a concern in motion pictures, because the subject is often moving and this helps delineate or define what the subject is. Perhaps if you gave some stills from film that might help answer your question. I think one of the roles of the DP is to clearly and concisely reveal whatever is being depicted on screen - unless the goal is to keep things hiddden and mysterious and keep the audience guessing as to just exactly what they're looking at - a quick example: when the mature 'alien' is finally shown, in 'Alien' (1979), though only as a close-up glimpse. But usually the director doesn't want to confuse the audience with the images. Hmm. Anyway, that's my brief take on the subject, for what it's worth. The term foreshorteneing got me thinking of the funny scene in the original 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory' - when Gene Wilder leads the newly-arrived guests into a trick room that gets narrower and smaller as you walk into it. Well, I don't know if my musings help you in any way, but I enjoyed typing them.

Very nice machine indeed! I gather they're not as quiet as the ST? But made up for very much in the greater lightness and ease of handling. I think if I got to the feature stage I would rent - but still, it is nice to own. Cameraquip here in Australia has STs for rent.

What could you get an LT for, going back, say, 5 years or so, when they were at their lowest price?

Looks great James!

One fun thing about Nikon DX (similar dimensions to APS-C) is that it's pretty close to 35mm motion picture frame size. Could help with lens choice and so on.

Bit of a squeeze getting the tape in, front and back of Arri mag. But I guess just tape up as best you can.....and get filming man (advice to self)

I'm not in a position to advise, but if you get the Nikon please post some of your footage here as I'm really interested in a Nikon digital camera. I've got some Nikon lenses and my dad was a Nikon man so it runs in the family. I know they always had very high quality of build.

Aye...true. Good point. I've located a R.B. legs in Australia. Somewhat more in price, but that's filmmaking.

Och! 'tis a lonely walk upon yonder heathery heights .. and no man nor beasty canna advise a lowly independent filmmaker, aye.