16mm Movie Cameras

[Scott Christopher Davis]

I'm looking to get out there, and experiment with film. It's something that is harder to learn where i live because its being phased out each year as digital is coming more and more into play.

 

I am a freshman at college, and I would like to know, what brand of 16mm cameras would you recommend to someone who looking to learn, and has never dealt with film before. I was looking at some older models on Ebay, like Keystone and Kodak, I just didnt know anything about them.

 

 

 

Any advice, comments, or suggestions would be appreciated.

 

 

Thanks.

[Freya Black]

Bell and Howell 240 can often be picked up cheap and is great. It's like a more modern filmo.

The filmo iteslf is nice too!

 

Bolex H16 is the most famous camera.

 

There are a few cheap keystone cameras that are fun for the price. I can't remember the model numbers these days tho? Anyone?

 

Freya

[Zac Fettig]

The easiest to work with is a Canon Scoopic. It threads itself, and has a built in light meter. Self contained. As easy as it gets in 16mm. If you want to start out, that's what I'd recommend.

[David Cunningham]

Any of the H16s are good and self threading too. But, if you go the reflex route, do yourself the favor and get a Rex5, maybe even one modified with a 13 or 14x viewfinder. Those Rex1 viewfinders are so dark and small focus pulling is crazy hard, especially in even slightly low light.

[Scott Christopher Davis]

Hey thanks everyone for replying. Im definitely going to look into each of those models. I think a self threading model would be best though. I hope they keep making film for them, i think it looks way better.

 

Thanks again you guys =)

[Freya Black]

Normally the 240 is self threading and does a fantastic job of it.

I don't think the filmo's can do this however.

 

The Scoopic is the nearest you can get to a Super8 camera, only in 16mm.

Not as versatile as other camera, and more expensive than some of the other 16mm cameras but very easy to use. :)

 

Freya

[Anthony Schilling]

The Bolex H16 is a good choice. I would go with the Rex 4 over the Rex 5 since the only difference is the Rex 5 can attatch a mag on top that you won't have or use, and sometimes have possible light leaks from that, also more expensive than a Rex 4. It has a spring motor than runs for about 40 seconds per wind up, so no batteries required. The Canon Scoopic is a good point and shoot for a beginner, it uses batteries that will need to be working.

[Bill DiPietra]

The Scoopic was always a bit too automated for me, with the threading system & internal light-meter. I would go with a Bolex or an Arri S to really get your hands dirty with film.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Bill DiPietra

[Will Montgomery]

I'd go with the Scoopic MS or MN also. I started 16mm with a K3 and loved the footage but it was painful to constantly wind the thing.

 

Bill has a good point about the automation, but honestly you'd get over that fast. Having the built-in meter that is surprisingly accurate is a great asset for run-n-gun shooting. You can use it to set the exposure then turn it to manual if you are afraid of breathing. They don't change exposure like a Super 8 camera...slower to adjust.

 

The threading system is the best part. It has to be the easiest and fastest camera for loading which is a plus when you are in a hurry.

 

If you are shooting features by all means go with an Arri SR, but for learning and fun go with the Scoopic; you'll be amazed at the quality.

[Bill Gaunce]

Hi, first time post . . .

 

Does anyone have any scoopic battery shells (containers for original scoopic 16 batteries) that they would be willing to sell?

 

Thanks - Bill

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Hi, first time post . . .

 

Does anyone have any scoopic battery shells (containers for original scoopic 16 batteries) that they would be willing to sell?

 

Thanks - Bill

You should probably make a thread in the Cine Marketplace.

[Bill Gaunce]

Thanks!

[Gregg MacPherson]

 

I'm looking to get out there, and experiment with film.

Scott,

Think some about what you really want to learn. Most people like the cameras that they began with or are familiar with, so they recommend them (I'm the same). It doesn't matter too much which camera you start with, if you are not too overshadowed or lost in that. But OK, you still have a legitimate question....although I don't think it is adequately qualified yet.

 

I say start with the simplest thing you can, but the camera has to be relavent to the things you want to learn. If you want to explore a sequence of photographic events on a piece of celluloid in a very intrinsic way then almost anything is OK as long as it isn't giving complexity and sophistication that is non useful.

 

Sadly (apologies to those that love Scoopic), the fact that you can't change lenses with Scoopic means that it is a sort of dead end or cul de sac. Choosing a lens and perhaps trying to adapt something unusual is crucial to the core of most exploration of photography.

 

To cut this short, without you having put yourself at risk by telling us more explicitly what you are looking for, I will spin the bottle and guess the most useful camera.....

 

Bolex, hopefully a later reflex model, with primes. You don't need 400' mags, or a camera that can accept them.

 

The best thing one can do is to ignore the myth of recording human action (or fictional constructions of that) in a literal way. Double ditto to the myth of recording human action with sync sound. Instead, consider each frame as a photograph, capable of great potency, and a succession of these is the physical, expressed essence of cinematography.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

You don't need 400' mags, or a camera that can accept them...

..Double ditto to the myth of recording human action with sync sound.

 

Although this is true, I found that I quickly outgrew MOS cameras with 100' loads. It is too limiting to begin with these if you know you want to make serious films one day.

[Gregg MacPherson]

 

....I found that I quickly outgrew MOS cameras with 100' loads. It is too limiting to begin with these if you know you want to make serious films one day.

Yes, one can outgrow an exploration of first principals. Suddenly one needs a 500 fps camera or a quiet camera. But, while some may believe they have done this, the majority have not, it's an illusion, they have simply given in to an overwhelmingly persuasive paradigm, where a "serious" film will require a more literal approach.

 

So to try and distill this idea. If one didn't understand the value of a simple MOS camera in the first place, how can one intelligently discard it.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

So to try and distill this idea. If one didn't understand the value of a simple MOS camera in the first place, how can one intelligently discard it.

Perhaps I spoke in the wrong manner. I forgot that with you, I have to be really careful about how I word things.

 

Maybe what I should have said is that, as one pursues longer works (i.e. feature) one must get tools of the trade. I do not think it is unreasonable to want 400' mags and dialog capability in a feature film...do you?

 

And I understand the value of an MOS camera. You learn how to visually tell a story.

[Gregg MacPherson]

So does serious film = feature film? One could always opt out of the conversation and say that on a personal level, it does, but then one might have to accept that it isn't tue for everyone.

 

I invite you to view La Jete or In Spring One Plants Alone, neither of which are features, both of which are extremly potent and influential works. Oh, almost forgot, they are very serious films.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

So does serious film = feature film?

I do not feel the need to defend my position. Serious, in this context, is in the traditional sense of being serious about your career. If you want a career, you will generally want dialog somewhere. You might not like it, and you might have some obscure reference to some MOS-shot short somewhere but those are exceptions rather than rules. I'll stick with 400' loads and sync sound; thank you.

[Chris Millar]

So get an RX5 without mags ... happy happy

[Gregg MacPherson]

 

.... Serious, in this context, is in the traditional sense of being serious about your career. If you want a career, you will generally want dialog somewhere. .....you might have some obscure reference to some MOS-shot short somewhere but those are exceptions rather than rules. ...

I don't think there was a context.

 

Chris Marker (La Jete) and Vincent Ward (In Spring One Plants Alone) were/are both very serious about their careers. La Jete is almost all shot from stills and In Spring One Plants Alone looks like it was shot mostly sync. I don't think either of these are really an obscure reference.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

 

I don't think there was a context.

 

Chris Marker (La Jete) and Vincent Ward (In Spring One Plants Alone) were/are both very serious about their careers. La Jete is almost all shot from stills and In Spring One Plants Alone looks like it was shot mostly sync. I don't think either of these are really an obscure reference.

This reminds me of an argument I had on here years ago with someone who said that you didn't even need a camera to be a cinematographer but could scratch on film with a pen. This feels like that conversation all over again.

[Brian Drysdale]

Films can be in a number of forms, a story could be told in a number of ways. I would differentiate being a filmmaker from being a cinematographer, they may not always be the same thing. Some filmmakers never touch the camera and it seems you can now be a cinematographer, or at least a DP on film that doesn't have any cameras (at least in the traditional sense).

[Doug Palmer]

400ft mag Bolex's can be handy, but are very much more bulky and not as easy to use when trying to grab some unexpected shots. I prefer using 2 Bolex 100footers, and reloading one when you have a quiet moment.

The B & H 240 is a very under-rated old 16mm camera, non-reflex but with a nice long duration spring motor and can be very steady.

 

http://www.filmisfine.co

[Freya Black]

And I understand the value of an MOS camera. You learn how to visually tell a story.

 

I acutally think the little 100ft MOS cameras can be quite useful for features too but obviously not as the main camera.

(Having said that "Following" was shot on a Bolex but with sync cameras available so cheaply at this point, theres no argument for not using one).

 

The 100ft cameras can go places that the larger camera might find difficult, so it might work for that shot from inside a fridge or when you need to be more portable or less noticable. They sometimes have features that are not easily available on the sync cameras too. I seem to remember my Filmo went up as high as 75fps! The Bolex has that cool Auto-B feature and single frame is more often available on the 100ft cameras than the bigger ones.

 

They also can have the advantage of not needing electricity sometimes.

 

Lots of uses for both and it's a matter of picking the right tool for the job once again.

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

This reminds me of an argument I had on here years ago with someone who said that you didn't even need a camera to be a cinematographer but could scratch on film with a pen. This feels like that conversation all over again.

 

I think they must have been confusing cinematographer with filmmaker as Brian implies!

I ran into someone recently who was saying what a great cinematographer someone was because of their editing style, so I think it's quite common for people to not understand what it means.

 

Freya