Balance Between 16mm Camera And Lenses
Published : 26th December 2005
Iâ€™m planing to buy a 16mm camera to shoot my first feature film.
I was seeing an Ã‰clair ACL because this camera is not very expensive, easy to upgrade to super 16, and it allows you to use lenses with different kinds of mounts.
In term of the pictures results: Is a good idea to buy high quality lenses like Zeiss PL primes for this camera? Is that a good balance? Will those lenses be unnecessary good for the results that I can get from one ACL?
Sometimes I decline myself to buy just a few Nikons still photography lenses and save rest of money for the future.
I will appreciate any advice or suggestions about this matter.
NicolÃ¡s Pucciarelli wrote :
>In term of the pictures results: Is a good idea to buy high quality lenses >like Zeiss PL primes for this camera? Is that a good balance?
An Ã‰clair ACL registers film as well as any camera.
The quality of the image is not limited by this camera. The better the optics, the better the picture. You do not need "PL" mount.
The most reasonable versions of Zeiss primes are in Arri-B mount. Nikkor lenses 24mm in focal length are far inferior to Zeiss primes. The most frequently used focal length for 16mm format is 12mm.
Robert Morein wrote :
>The most frequently used focal length for 16mm format is12mm.
By people who like 12mm lenses, perhaps.
Jeff "prefers the 9.5mm" Kreines
This is a great question and it's an important misunderstanding that I see in a lot of first time camera buyers. They spend all their money on a camera body and then can only afford a very cheap lens.
A camera is essentially a box that holds film. The image quality comes from the lenses and the film stock. This of course assumes that the camera functions properly.
My advice is to spend as much as you can on quality optics because that is where you will see the most for your money. An ACL with Zeiss SuperSpeeds should give you excellent results.
George Hupka writes :
>spend as much as you can on quality optics because that is where you >will see the most for your money.
Or buy the body only and rent really good lenses for the first while, rather than taking the big plunge all at once.
NicolÃ¡s Pucciarelli wrote :
>Iâ€™m planing to buy a 16mm camera to shoot my first feature film.
I would ask, why?
Is it an extended shooting schedule? Far off location? Do you have other plans for it in the future? Are you looking to be a DP and continue shooting for other people's projects? Are you even the DP, or are you the Director?
If you are shooting your principle photography in one block in a reasonable location and you don't have immediate future plans for the camera, renting will make a lot of sense. Or you may hire a DP / Operator / AC that owns a camera package (as many of us on this list do) and use that. Renting S16 gear is really not that expensive.
I'm not saying you should not buy a package, but it definitely is not necessary.