Even today, just about every college and workshop teaching film, world-wide, will have a brace of these little clockwork masterpieces in their equipment cupboards. So, if you wish to start on down the road of making movies on 16mm and you havent a great deal of money (or a rich aunt), your best bet by far is to go for one of these beasties! This article, I hope, will guide you through the often confusing array of models available, by giving you an idea of what each camera can and cant do, and also what you should expect to pay. Having had such a long production run, many subtle changes were made along the way. Fundamentally speaking, the older they are, the fewer things they can do, and the less money they cost (however, even the latest models bear a striking resemblance to the original). BUDGET LEVEL - UP TO
£200 Focusing your lens is achieved thus: the lens to be used is placed in the top turret position. You are now able to view through it using the viewfinder on top of the camera. You focus the lens. You then turn the turret through 90 degrees to the filming position. You then use a viewfinder on the side of the camera, which can be set to give you the correct viewing angle for the lens you are using. The problem is of course, that if your subject moves you cannot correct the focus (other than by guessing). By the same virtue, you cant really use a zoom lens either, as you would be unable to see what was in frame as you were filming. (N.B. Som-Berthiot/Pancinor did make a zoom lens with a reflex finder built in, so if that is part of the kit, you neednt worry). You get about 30seconds filming time from one full wind of the clockwork motor, (this is true of all the clockwork cameras), so you wont be doing an Orson Welles with this one either. Viewfinders are small and poor, and often dirty - just accept this, after all, beggars cant be choosers. Well, those are the drawbacks, but what these cameras can offer is, frame rates from 1-64fps plus a hand cranking facility,(for double exposures and strange frame rates) and, most importantly, 16mm image quality. BUDGET LEVEL Its also extremely useful in terms of exposure control. For instance; imagine you are shooting outdoors on a bright sunny day. Your light meter suggests an aperture of f22 (giving maximum depth of field) but you want to shoot with a wider aperture (giving a shorter depth of field), simply reduce the shutter opening by a quarter or a half and Bobs your proverbial! This being probably the most sensible Bolex to buy, they are quite thin on the ground. So many people want one, that they tend to stay on sale for days rather than weeks. So, if you get the chance to buy one, pounce on it (provided of course you have tested it thoroughly, or have obtained a warranty from a retailer). A basic set of lenses for this would again be the 16/25/75mm combination, costing around £69 - £100 each. Prime lenses also vary in quality. Those designated Switar are the best, giving you sharper results especially when shooting wide open. The Yvars and Pizars were economy versions, but still quite usable and a fair bit cheaper. A wide range of suitable zooms are available and these will cost you anywhere between £100 - £500. A wider angle and much sought after lens is the 10mm. This will cost you £250 - £600 depending on age and condition. There is even a 5.5mm aspheric adaptor for this, giving you fish-eye super wide effects! BUDGET LEVEL The RX-5: Clockwork, capable of taking a motor (which can be crystal synched), 400ft mags, and has a much improved, larger, clearer viewfinding system. The SBM: Same as the RX-5 but takes Bolex bayonet fitting lenses (you can get adaptors for these cameras allowing you to use the more common C-mount). The EBM: Has a built in electric motor (requiring an external battery). Also takes bayonet lenses. The EL: The latest and quietest of the lot. These are certainly all good cameras, but it would be remiss of me here not to mention alternatives when you have this level of funding available... Mike Valentine Full article published in Filmwaves - Issue 4, Spring 1998. Subscribe now! |
![]() |
![]() |