Stephen Perera

prices on super 16 lenses??? email? graphics@gibraltar.gi thanks

thanks for responding....prob around the 24mm to 35mm equivalent field of view of a 35mm film camera

Hi all, I finally bought an Aaton XTR super 16mm film camera as some of you know.......so now i come to a lens dilemma. The camera brings the Aaton to Nikon F mount adapter so that's the way I'm going....so where i fall short is on achieving a wide angle field of view......I just can't with any of my lenses There are loads of affordable 'full frame' lenses out there you can stick a gear on at worst but even an 18mm (full frame with the aperture ring like a Zeiss ZF.2) will give me the field of view roughly like a 54mm lens on the Aaton (assuming a 2.97 'crop factor' as a guideline)... ......I can't blow $4000 plus on a cine lens which even then still has a 'crop' factor as are super 35mm....so should I just buy a one off super 16mm specific lens with either Aaton mount or Arri bayonet mount or Nikon mount??? any workarounds or recommendations you can help me with.....

thanks for the feedback

......in my opinion the style of our decade is lens flares, vintage lenses and trying to make the movies shot digitally look as if its shot on Kodak stock (film)!!!! I think our decade has deduced the film look is THE look but for their own reasons they don't shoot on film....maybe they shoot digitally to ensure everyone on set can see through monitors making sure they get their 'two cents' accounted for.....but what do i know.....

...as some of you may know (as I've pulled you into my 'what Super 16mm film camera to purchase' debate - some of you even trying to help me buy one!!!!) I'm in the crucial position of having to go for one system over another....for me its either Aaton XTR or Arriflex SR2/3. So....a few final questions to you all my learned friends out there.... 1. As a price ceiling means I have to forgo the video assist (or do I?) I thus need the brightest viewfinder to focus.....which standard viewfinder/system is best for focusing....I come from Hasselblad 6x6 film experience to know how crucial this is....I am also left-eyed and use glasses for computer work 2. Which of the two has easier film loading process (not necessarily a big issue as one can learn things with practice but wanted to know anyway) 3. The big one - which of the two Aaton XTR or Arriflex SR3 is less reliant on electronics to shoot (aside from the battery requirement to keep the 24fps as accurate as possible of course) I apologise for questions which Im sure have been asked and answered in different ways in this forum over the years but they are specific to me in this case.....thank you all in advance. I'm from Europe (Gibraltar) and live in Europe if that swings anything....Spain being the nearest service option..... Importantly I'm a one-man-band 'lover of Kodak film (Kodak Portrait and Tmax being my faves), bucket list: I wanna shoot some personal projects on film' person.....not a professional DP or anything even remotely similar.....I'm a full time professional Designer/Photographer though of nearly 30 years experience with images though.....

I have a Sinar F2 I know what you're saying Peter....

thanks for this post great images

ironically no...the iPad Pro has a much squarer screen and you can watch full screen standard 16mm films on it!!!! thanks for taking the time to help me out....

yes definitely.....Ariflex SR2 is in the picture although I like the form factor of the Aaton and their philosophy...the cat on the shoulder thing is just too cool hahaha thanks for commenting and taking the time everyone

I can live with regular 16mm yes.....preferably a quiet camera yes so I can be 1m away and recording sound with a boom.....I'd like to spend no more than 2,700 dollars incl. fully working battery and magazines....lenses I have my own and can adapt....

Been reading all comments with interest.....some of which I can't relate to of course given the fact I haven't used any of the mentioned cameras/systems nor do i know the idiosyncrasies of the systems.... in summary though, so far its pretty clear you all agree I'm risking it with the K3 given its shortcomings with film transportation and possible scratches, not to mention consistent fps accuracy ......of course EVERY second I shoot is important as film has its price and I have a very considered pre-planned mindset (still have the photography make 12 frames count 120 film mindset) thus....what would be REALLY helpful to me is is what everyone concurs is a baseline quality camera - by quality I mean reliability to move film along in its canister at a fixed speed without scratches and everything else mentioned..... ......there are a lot of Bolex H16's on sale, Arriflex SR to SR3, Aaton LTR to XTR Prods, Beaulieu R16s....obv depends on budget but I am not interested in video assist nor in camera light meters etc.... I know I know, its the modern day 'what camera shall I get' thing but note what Im saying...I just want a camera recommendation that will give me accurate 24fps and pass that film over the gate as best as possible.....the quality I can get with proper lighting, great lenses and great film stock..... ah comments on 16mm or super 16mm also helpful....I was thinking of masking the viewfinder if need be and actually thinking normal 16mm is more useful as it would allow more cropping flexibility as long as the main point of interest are maintained in the middle of the frame..... .....ironic is the fact that regular 16mm looks better on an iPad Pro on Vimeo for example than a super 16mm as it practically IS the 16mm format!! THANK YOU ALL

Thanks a lot everyone for your excellent insights which will help me......

Hello everyone, I would love to hear your opinions on the following.... I'm waiting for a Russian K3 16mm camera to arrive which I bought recently and ordered some Kodak 16mm stock for it.... .....in the meantime (as one does in this day and age) I've been thinking about 'upgrading' to an Arriflex SR +....then I started thinking....why? which is where you all come in I hope to offer advice, knowledge.... An aside.....I used to shoot stills with a Hasselblad 503CW back in the day and now I have a standard 500CM but using the same excellent Hasselblad zeiss lenses = same quality of images.....the lenses give me the quality NOT the model of the Hasselblad I am using....thats a fact with me..... So i was thinking of how this relates to the K3 or Arriflex SR (whatever) scenario.... If the K3 gives me the 24fps without variation (it is a winding mechanism after all) using my beloved zeiss glass on it via the M42 mount..e.g. my superb 50mm aus jena f1.8.....or even using a Hasselblad V mount to M42 adapter (also in the post).....surely I will get the same results as using the same glass on an Arriflex.... my question really is, as long as the film is moved in front of the gate properly and at the correct speed does it matter what camera body I use (variable) given the quality of the lens???? or even simpler....would I get the same quality of image if I use the same lens on a K3 and an Arriflex SR3? There is a lot of garbage shot on 16mm which probably degrades the 'image' of the medium, sure this has to do more with the fact people do not know how to shoot film as opposed to cheaper cameras....cos the film is the same quality as long as a great lens is in front of it but sensors on digital cameras...well, we all know how different those all are.... (obviously the above is assuming I don't want internal light metre, video monitoring, audio capabilities, timecode, and any other advanced features that have nothing to do with image quality) Thank you for your time I look forward to replies....

what is the kit you are offering on this details please thanks Rick