Cineflex 35mm, anyone used one? Exactly like Arri?

[Matt Pacini]

I've heard that these were American knock-offs of the Arri II's, and I've seen them a bit cheaper.

 

Has anyone here ever used or seen one?

Are they any good?

Are they exact copies, and do they use the exact same mags, accessories, etc.?

 

Matt Pacini

[Mitch Gross]

They are similar copies, but not quite exact. They were also only made for a relatively short time and with a distinctly inferior lens mount. You would need to have the front turret alterred just to be able to use commonly available optics like the 2C can. Same goes for the motor mount, mag connection to the camera, eyepiece for accessories such as a tap, etc., etc. For the small difference in cost I would seriously suggest the Arri 2C. For the small difference in cost you will be getting a far more usable camera.

[Christian Appelt]

Yeah, better get an old Arri. The 2B is okay, too, it has the same movement as the 2C but a simpler viewfinder. The Arri cameras are so simple that you will hardly experience bad surprises. All parts (except for the pre 1952 Arri 1's which you will neither encounter nor want because it has a more primitive movement) are still available and there are many, many good lenses out there in the old Arri Standard mount. You may even get a converted PL-mount Arri so you can use the newest high speed or anamorphic lenses that you rent only for a special purpose.

 

Have the camera checked by a rental house or camera technician, and have it greased/oiled regularly, and if possible, buy a spare motor. Then you have a fine workhorse 35mm camera - it was good enough for Stanley Kubrick & Russ Meyer! :rolleyes:

 

The Konvas is fine, too, but try to get a set of spare parts (they are on eBay sometimes) and have the camera lubricated by a technician. The saying about spare motors goes here too, and I mean it!

If you want to shoot anamorphic, it is harder to find anamorphic lenses for old Arris, I would get a Konvas in this case.