what (still) camera do you use?

[redrice]

thanks for all the suggestions. i've been thinking this one over some more, and it strikes me there are two ways of approaching this:

1. you want the nearest possible equivalent to using the cine camera you will use to film: the idea is to practice seeing through the parameters of that camera, without burning up k40 rolls at 24fps. that would mean different things for different people: but for all of us, it would mean - and this strikes me as crucial - learning to crop in camera, and not rely on the darkroom. this means not only finding a still camera with the same viewfinder system, but ONE WITH THE SAME ASPECT RATIO. (i.e. 4:3)

2. OTOH, you could look at this in entirely the opposite way. you don't want to approximate the experience of using a particular camera: instead, you want to learn as much as possible about the photographic process, so that you can then, in any given situation, be aware of what the equipment you now have to hand can NOT do.

and you want in particular to learn how to obtain images which look the way you want them to from ANY equipment, however 'misleading' the information provided by the viewfinder.

in this case, the best camera will not be the one that is most like your super 8 cine camera, but the one that makes you do the most work, not simply in terms of hands-on controlling the machine, but above all, in terms of learning to visualise what you want, and then obtain that result, without being 'fooled' into thinking that when you look in the viewfinder WYSIWYG.

it is this knowledge - the discrepancy between what you can see with your eyes, and what you can get in the negative or on paper - that you can then take away and apply to cinema or even video.

in that case, even stuff that is impossible in film - like applying the Zone System rigorously - would help you to understand the medium and its limitations more fully, even if only so that when you see a scene you want to shoot, you can stop and say: no, it's impossible to get the effect i want with this camera/film/lighting/etc.

it's the second argument which makes me think that the SLR isn't the obvious solution it seems to be. as roll'em says, there are a lot of good non-reflex cameras out there, and one day, you may have to deal with one of them...

just more grist to the mill:...

peter

[mattias]

don't forget about the olympus om2. lots and lots of camera for the money. there's a great winder available too.

[miguelito]

I use the Pentax Program Plus 35mm SLR. I
bought it used with a 50mm F1.4 lens, Pentax
AF280T flash and 135 F2.5 lens all for $280.00. It works great for me.


miguelito

[xclark]

here in the US, the Pentax K1000 is the perfect student camera. 35mm SLR and can do everything you need to learn the things you listed. they're fairly easy to find and inexpensive too. i got mine for $100.

good luck.

clark

[AlexGfromUK]

although you may need to deal with a non reflex movie camera one day, all s-8 cameras worth owning are reflexive and in the larger formats the better cameras are all reflexive too, you'd probably be pretty unlucky to find yourself faced with using a non reflex camera.

maybe rollemfilm takes SLR to mean a program or AF camera, but people are suggesting fully manual cameras, and I don't see how working with a rangefinder is going to teach you ANYTHING at all that an SLR won't.

As for the aspect ratio, I don't think you'll find a camera that shares that with super 8, but you could always construct a mask to be mounted in front of the lens.

AlexG.

[redrice]

a 645 medium-format camera is in effect 4:3 (= 6:4.5). however, most of them are rather unwieldy.

my point about reflex viewing isn't so much that some cine cameras are non-reflex, as that some filming styles are 'reflex' - i.e involve the sense of direct visual, monocular contact with the subject - and others depend far more on 'pre-visualisation' and knowing that the image you see in the viewfinder isn't at all what you will get.

a rangefinder, OTOH, would also allow you to see the exact moment you are capturing - the precise gesture or expression on someone's face - which might be as relevant to what you want to learn as exact reflex framing.

i guess the moral is: different still cameras have different weaknesses and strengths, and none of them is exactly the same as shooting cine.

p

[Alex]

Peter, you make a scarily perceptive observation about "viewing" an object the moment you film it. (it's like your inside my own head)

One of the most important aspects for me about Super-8 time-exposure work is the fact that I do get to see the field of view the entire time I am filming....

...rather than time-sharing with the shutter!

Although it wouldn't really be "sharing" if I only got 1/8 of a second and the shutter got 5 seconds!

-Alex

[rollemfilm]

it's needless to say, to be a good cinematographer you must first master basic photogrphy. you cannot do this with contempoary cameras. the more basic the better. try using a non-reflex still camera and learn how it "was" before the slr. i mean "single lens reflex"....reflex viewing was not always an option. think of all the great films made without it. most silent features. most sound films also, till the 40's. and after that most independent films till the mid 50's ealry 60's. as now, back then, independents hunted down old gear. while the old stuff made great pictures, studios with money could upgrade or buy new reflex cameras. they would sell off the older gear. even today, some of those non-reflex cameras are still in service. anyway, my point here is the ability to create with the most basic tools. the Canadain Film Board in the 60's made animated films without a camera!

[Matt Pacini]

I use a Nikon FM-2 with only Nikon lenses.
I love this camera, and I hate automatic functions of any kind!
(Too much S8 shooting, I guess).
Matt Pacini

[AlexGfromUK]

I have the same equipment and the same opinion on auto functions! you don't have any idea where I can get a 24mm AI nikkor for an ok price do you?!