Hey guys, I was thinking about moving up to a 16mm camera to "play" around with. A friend of mine reccomended the KRASNOGORSK K3 camera and it looks like a decent bit of equipment for a good price. It usually goes for around $200.

Has anyone used this before? Anyone have any better reccomendations.

I used it. GREAT beginner 16mm camera with a zoom lens on it. Its like a bolex just easier to use. You cant go wrong with that one especially for 200 dollar

How much is film stock? Processing? Etc...?

hey, where are you finding this $200 price tag? Most sites selling the K-3s that I see are selling them around 800 bucks (and the Super 16 ones are going for 900).

Ah, nevermind, (checked ebay).

the only thing about K3 is that if they're made to be very simple, so once you try to do more advanced techniques you won't be able too.

parts are harder to find, so they are more expensive to fix if something happens to them. one of the reason people like them so much is because they're so cheap that if one breaks, you can just buy another one, and it will still be cheaper than buying a "real" 16mm camera (meaning one that has all the toys/options for intense work)

So what could I not do with it?

Well, the cheap models don't have crystal sync. The camera is also extremely noisy. If you're planning on shooting anything with location sound, it will have to be heavily blimped, and still might not be usable, especially indoors.

The windup mechanism means any shot must be less than 35 seconds or so. From what I've read, there is no manual exposure control (does it have an exposure lock?)

I've also heard the quality is variable. After all, it is Russian.

The lens is not interchangeable, AFAIK, although to buy another decent lens would probably cost as much as the camera or more.

The final factor is cost. Not of the camera. Can you afford to shoot and process 16mm? How would you transfer it? Oh, the lab can telecine it? $$$. Especially since you have to place a minimum order for the transfer, usually 1 hour ($200-300). This is in addition to processing costs and the film itself.

The K3 is a neat camera, but IMO is out of place in a serious production. If you buy it expecting an Arri, Scoopic, or Bolex, you're going to be severely disappointed.

If you want to shoot film, Super 8 is far cheaper.

yea, i mean when i say you can't do fancy stuff with it, it's a lot of technical stuff that you need to worry about with film.

no sound, no sync, can't do long takes, and it only takes 100 ft spools (on shoots 400ft is considered standard)

al the stuff that kubota says is true. but it doesn't mean you can't shoot a short with it. you can shoot with it, just not have any sync sound. but ADR and wild sound can still be good.

i use the K3 whenever i can't get a bolex, and the only reason i use the bolex is because i can wind it and adjust the shutter.

other than that use an Arri or an Aaton, but those are EXPENSIVE.

K3's are great though.

How much is Film. How much is film processing?

It depends. Usually $.20-.30/ft, with the newer color negative stocks running a little higher and B&W reversal maybe slightly less. Keep in mind that if you shoot negative you have to get a work print.

As I said, processing and telecine fees vary widely.

You also have to consider the entire work flow. The cheapest possible way to shoot 16mm would be to buy a cheap camera like the K3 or a heavily used Bolex or B&H, shoot the cheapest B&W reversal stock, get a one-light print from the lab, project it on to a piece of heavy paper using a projector you found in someone's attic, and record it using a miniDV camera.

Of course the results from this method won't be nearly as good as having a lab do a telecine, but it will save some money. If you do it that way I can't see much of an advantage to using 16mm, though.

Have you looked into Super 8? Much cheaper. You can get a decent camera for $20 or less, film is $9 a cart (3m 20s at 18 fps) with the student discount, and processing is $4.88 at Wal-Mart.

RFranco - you can definitely shoot a short with it, I'm not saying otherwise. It would be a silent short, granted, with no long takes. I'm not sure how good the registration is on that model, and I hear some of them have gates that will scratch the film slightly. You'll have a rough looking finished product which isn't bad by itself, but it's not something I'd spend $200 + film and lab fees on, either. A Super 8 camera would be a better choice in that case.

My brother's friend has a K3 and says it's ok but rarely uses it - he thinks of it as more of a toy than a serious tool.

it's funny because 4 years ago, i thought 200 dollars was a lot of money. now, spending about 1,000 on a 5 minute short seems really cheap and slightly embarasing. that's why i like K3.

some people here at my school spend 10,000 - 20,000 dollars on their shorts (graduate and sometimes undergraduate), and they usually shoot it on Super 16 because 35 is still to expensive considering everything else they have to pay for.

I'm not saying that $200 is a huge outlay for the camera, but considering that the picture quality from a K3 if you have to use a cheap lab and get cheap processing with a one-light print may not look so great, I would look into other alternatives.