In The Market For 16mm

Post by **downix** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:38 pm

mattias wrote:buy the cheapest 16mm camera you can find, then rent when you need something better. i shoot with the newest, biggest and most expensive arri cameras all the time, but own a keystone a-7, which is probably the cheapest one there is yet quite good. anybody has a lens with built in viewfinder to sell btw?

/matt

Be sure it has the viewfinder intact. I have a Bethiot Pon-Cinor, but it's missing the viewfinder. Not a terribly sharp lens tho, I get better results using my M42 mounts.

Post by **switar king** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:10 pm

Nigel--

Please give me clear, precise, factual support for your statement that Cooke lenses are better than Switars before you tell me to shove em'. In what way are they better, sharpness, color resolve, glass purity, glass formuation? What is the percentage of occlusions and abberations in Cooke glass? Does Cooke use rare earth elements in their glass, if so, what kind and why? Newness of glass and price really don't mean shit to me. Neither does what some wannabe filmmakers talk about around their sewing circles.

And how can you compare the results of something shot on 35mm with something shot on 16mm? It's like comparing apples and oranges.

I'll bet you are scrambling on the internet right now to find something that supports your unresearched statement.

And by the way, Switars use Zeiss glass. :oops:

Regards,

Switar King

Post by **downix** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:15 pm

I have a 1929 Cooke, but it's not that sharp. Even a cheap $10 TV-camera lens beats it for sharpness.

Post by **Nigel** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:29 pm

If Switars are soooooo great then why is that when I walk into a rental house they don't have them?? How many awards has Switar won?? Both technically and secondary (Meaning Award winning pictures shot with them)?? Why aren't people chasing them down and modifying them to be used on PL mount cameras?? Why aren't industry leaders like Aaton, Arri, Movicam, Panavision using Switars??

I am not going to troll the internet for information as to why they don't compete--Because they just don't.

They are consumer lenses...They maybe nice lenses but to say that they are the best. No way.

Good Luck

Post by **switar king** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:45 pm

Nobody is using them because they haven't made them for a long time, and I doubt a camera manufacturer would sell you their new camera and then tell you, "now, go look on EBAY and find some twenty-plus year old lenses to put on our new camera, oh, and you'll need to find an adapter so they fit our camera mount, oh, yea, you'll also have to get them recollimated so they work with our new camera." Does that sound like good business? Because, most Switars are c-mount lenses, which is a dead mount these days, and Switar RX lenses are designed specifically for the Bolex Reflex optical system, they won't be properly collimated on any other camera unless they are adjusted or adapted. Uninformed people who buy new things want new things because they THINK they are better things. Which is a good thing for people in the know, because that leaves all these wonderful old lenses for us to grab for a few bucks.

And by the way, Kern Paillard had a range of lenses for Bolex cameras: Pizar (inexpensive) for amatures, Yvar (better), and Switars (Professional). Switars in their day were very, very expensive. If you do the math, Switars were probably more expensive in their day than Cooke lenses are today.

Do pictures win awards for the lines of resolution they resolve, and their color rendition, or do they win awards for their composition and subject matter? Have you ever heard of a picture not winning an award because the judge said, "you shoud have used a better lens?" YIKES!!!!

When did you do your exhaustive questionaire of people to determine that people aren't chasing them down and modifying them to be used on PL mount cameras? How can you even make a statement like that?

Now you're just starting to sound like a kid screaming "my dad can beat up your dad".

Anyway, I'm done with this topic. I really don't care what you think Nigel.

Regards,

Al

Post by **mattias** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:31 pm

switar king wrote:Please give me clear, precise, factual support for your statement that Cooke lenses are better than Switars

he said that the best cookes are better than all switars. there's a difference you know. this is not about brand prestige but about the best image. if you take a cooke and a switar from the same year, that are priced the same and have similar specifications i'm sure you're right, but who cares? we're talking the difference between a decent old school c-mount lens and a brand new one that's the industry standard for sharpness here, right? please correct me if i'm wrong.

/matt

Post by **mattias** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:33 pm

switar king wrote:Nobody is using them because they haven't made them for a long time

and you still maintain that they are better than a brand new cooke? you *are* on crack.

/matt

Post by **MattPacini** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:12 pm

The Canon 1014XL-S or 814 are about 70%-80% as load as the MOS 16mm cameras listed.
They are NOT quiet, and they are not sync-sound either.

If you really are only going to spend under $1K, I'd suggest a Canon Scoopic M or MS.
Not quiet, but the same price as a 1014XL-S, and your footage will look about 800% better.

Matt Pacini