Jump to content


Photo

One more time on the Canon Scoopic


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 John Adolfi

John Adolfi
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts
  • Producer
  • Fulton, N.Y.

Posted 24 August 2006 - 06:28 AM

After reading some of your threads on 16mm choises, I'm curious and would like to hear from those who have experienced the Canon Scoopic M or MS. I believe these later two models had the better lens?
Since the Scoopic did not have pin registration but has a great lens how would it compare to an Arri S or any other pin camera in and around the $1000 - $2000 price range. PS please leave Bolex out of this.
  • 0

#2 A.Oliver

A.Oliver
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • Other
  • Croydon UK

Posted 24 August 2006 - 07:12 AM

Hi, my first 16mm camera was a scoopic 16ms (think ms stands for multi speed), thought the M and MS used the same 12.5 to 75 lens. Have obtained some wonderfull images thru the the MS on k25 in full sun lite. Filmed my sisters wedding on the MS, confetti shot was done using 64 fps, images were very steady. So why did i out the MS?. Images go soft in low lite, my findings were the lens lacks the resolving power of prime lenses and tends to go soft in low lite. Once used 7248 thru the scoopic on a two camera shoot, the other camera was the ST with zeiss T3, zeiss images on the one lite print were miles sharper than the scoopic. In good lite the scoopic is great, forget it at T2.5. Arri 16 must be first choice over the scoopic. One thing i found really usefull with the scoopic is aperature readout in the viewfinder, was very easy to ride the exposure when required.
  • 0

#3 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 24 August 2006 - 07:53 AM

Arri 16 must be first choice over the scoopic.


That really depends on what you're doing with it right? I mean using an Arri 16 isn't quite as easy as the Scoopic... for non-staged shots, "run & gun" type work, especially for a hobbiest, the Scoopic is a great camera.
  • 0

#4 Marty Hamrick

Marty Hamrick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 543 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oshawa, Ontario

Posted 24 August 2006 - 04:30 PM

That really depends on what you're doing with it right? I mean using an Arri 16 isn't quite as easy as the Scoopic... for non-staged shots, "run & gun" type work, especially for a hobbiest, the Scoopic is a great camera.



I second that.I've shot sports handheld from the sidelines with both the Arri S and the Canon Scoopic.For such shoots,I'll take the Scoopic.For tripod,dolly,crane shots,I'll take the Arri S.
  • 0

#5 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 24 August 2006 - 06:59 PM

I have a Scoopic M, and also a CP16R/A with a good Canon zoom, as well as a set of CP Ultra Primes, and an older Zeiss zoom.

The M & MS have the same lens.
I second the comments about it being soft in low light. Around 4-5.6 + though it's pretty sharp, although not as sharp as a good prime (no surprise there, after all, it is a zoom lens).

It's really a unique camera. It shouldn't be compared to ALL 16mm cameras.
If you can afford get a good camera that takes lenses, uses 400ft mags (as opposed to only the 100 foot'ers like the K3 & Scoopic), and is quiet, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I think it's much better than any of the hand-crank cameras.

I still have mine, to get quick MOS cutaways & stuff when I don't want to go through moving the tripod or dolly that my main camera is on. I can shoot really fast this way. Some would think it's a wacky thing to do, but if framed properly and lit to an adequate stop, it works out fine for me.

MP
  • 0

#6 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 24 August 2006 - 07:35 PM

Hi,

I own a Scoopic 16M as well, and I concur with the others - the Scoopic is a really unique camera for its price range. I got mine for $400 on Ebay, and spent about $200 more on recelling the batteries, adding filters, etc. The lens is quite sharp from T4-T8, soft at T2.5 and T22. In film school, most of our cinematography projects were shot either with the Scoopic M or an Arri S/B or SR2 with the Zeiss 10-100 T2. Watching projected workprints back-to-back, we were often fooled by which lens was used. That said, I'd take the Zeiss any time I could get it, but it goes to show how good of a lens the Canon can be.

About the lens: I think the best thing about it is the macro feature - you can switch the lens into macro at any focal length, allowing you to preset the focus and rack from the extreme foreground to background by twisting the macro ring. There's also less lens breathing when you focus with the macro ring (otherwise, the breathing is pretty bad). The circles of confusion when stopped down are octagonal, by the way.

I don't think it's worth spending an extra $500-$1000 on the MS model. The only real difference is the ability to use behind-the-lens filters and the 400' mag capacity, which you can't even use without the rare and expensive adapter. Later models of the 16M have the same run-lock release switch on the handle as the MS.
  • 0

#7 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 25 August 2006 - 01:29 PM

Just remember to avoid the plain, gray Scoopic model.

By the way, when I engage the run-lock switch, my camera makes a loud rattling, like something's definitely not right, so I don't use it.
Any other Scoopic owners have this problem? If I hold down the switch, no problem, but if I switch it over to run-lock, it's like something's lose.

MP
  • 0

#8 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 27 August 2006 - 02:56 AM

Just remember to avoid the plain, gray Scoopic model.

By the way, when I engage the run-lock switch, my camera makes a loud rattling, like something's definitely not right, so I don't use it.
Any other Scoopic owners have this problem? If I hold down the switch, no problem, but if I switch it over to run-lock, it's like something's lose.

MP


Hi Matt,

My Scoopic has the newer style run-lock release button on the handle and thus automatically goes into run-lock mode when I roll camera. No funny noises, though. I've used a bunch of Scoopic M models of various vintages in film school and never had that problem. I wonder who you'd send it to in order to have it serviced - I doubt there are many dedicated Scoopic techs out there.

Edited by Satsuki Murashige, 27 August 2006 - 02:57 AM.

  • 0

#9 Jaxon Bridge

Jaxon Bridge
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Director
  • New York, NY

Posted 24 December 2006 - 04:36 PM

After reading some of your threads on 16mm choises, I'm curious and would like to hear from those who have experienced the Canon Scoopic M or MS. I believe these later two models had the better lens?
Since the Scoopic did not have pin registration but has a great lens how would it compare to an Arri S or any other pin camera in and around the $1000 - $2000 price range. PS please leave Bolex out of this.


I have a Scoopic 16 M. It is incredibly easy to use, small, rugged, perfect for a beginner, but also yields professional results with skill. The Macro lens functionality is truly amazing, as is the convenient stop-motion abilities to shoot single frames at a time.

The built-in light meter on mine is not reliable, and I would recommend doing lots of tests before giving up your separate light metering process. You can of course turn this functionality off.

I am in the process of having a sound-dampening barney made for it by http://customupholsteryproducts.com/.

You can learn about the history of these cameras from Canon's website: http://www.canon.com.../camera/16cine/

I really like it a lot, and they are quite cheap to acquire for under $1000 easily.

I used an Arri 16 in film school years ago, with the 3-lens turret, and it sure is a nice camera also, but for low-budget work I really can't say I'd prefer one over the other necessarily, and the Arri would no doubt be twice as expensive at least.

Hope this help!

-J
  • 0

#10 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 24 December 2006 - 10:42 PM

Oh yeah,

I just realized how the Scoopic's lens was able to compete in perceived sharpness with the Zeiss lens - it's the modern lens coating, cutting down on flare and increasing contrast. The lens itself does not resolve as many lines/mm, but the increased contrast creates the perception of more sharpness. Also, I realized we would always use hard light, undiffused fresnels.

I've shot a lot of stuff on the Arri S/B this past semester with various lenses, and if it's a choice between an Arri plus a crap Angieneux 12-120 or crap Cooke Kinetal prime and a Scoopic with the stock lens, I'll take the Scoopic any day. On the other hand, the Arri with the Zeiss 10-100 T2 kicks the Scoopic's ass.

By the way, the turret on the Arri is suspect with heavy lenses - I AC'd a short a few weeks ago with Zeiss zoom on the Arri, and the turret was very loose, throwing off the FFD. We compensated by never shooting below T4 and avoiding the wider focal lengths when possible, but we still had a few soft wide shots. There was also some slight vignetting when we zoomed in. I'm still confused about this, actually - how could there be vignetting at 50mm and none at 10mm?
  • 0

#11 Patrick Cooper

Patrick Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 December 2006 - 01:47 AM

"By the way, the turret on the Arri is suspect with heavy lenses - I AC'd a short a few weeks ago with Zeiss zoom on the Arri, and the turret was very loose, throwing off the FFD."

Hmmm....was that using heavy lenses on the aluminium Arri standard mount or the steel Arri bayonet mount?
  • 0

#12 lluis

lluis
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 25 December 2006 - 03:58 AM

After 30 years from its manufacture this camera needs to fit the pressure plate... Then the back focus will be OK and you'll have more resolution at full aperture. This zoom lens (sorry) is really sharp!!
  • 0

#13 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 26 December 2006 - 05:32 AM

Hmmm....was that using heavy lenses on the aluminium Arri standard mount or the steel Arri bayonet mount?


That would be the Bayonet mount. And the Zeiss lens ain't that heavy - it was just too heavy for the camera! Come to think of it though, the culprit could be the shoddy, out-of-spec, film school camera. I tightened all the screws I could find on the turret, but it was still loose. A well-maintained Arri might be able to handle it.
  • 0

#14 chuck colburn

chuck colburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Other
  • orygun

Posted 26 December 2006 - 06:39 PM

That would be the Bayonet mount. And the Zeiss lens ain't that heavy - it was just too heavy for the camera! Come to think of it though, the culprit could be the shoddy, out-of-spec, film school camera. I tightened all the screws I could find on the turret, but it was still loose. A well-maintained Arri might be able to handle it.


Hello Satsuki,

The only screw on an Arri S camera that controls how loose or tight the turret is to the camera body is the one in the middle of the turret. This one requires an adjustable pin spanner, or the Arri factory tool to loosen or tighten it. There are very thin shim washers under this screw to adjust for the end play in this assembly. That is to say without the proper shims the turret is either going to be too loose or too tight.
Any zoom or other heavy lens (telephotos) requires a lens support if used on a standard Arri (non S/B) type turret mount as the only thing on those type camera mounts holding the lens in are two little spring loaded ears at the back of the turret hole. These were fine when the the camera was first disigned as there were no zoom lenses back then. But even back then a lens support was needed for longer focal length lenses.

Heres to a happy new year to all,
Chuck Colburn
  • 0

#15 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 27 December 2006 - 02:50 AM

I've shot with a Scoopic on most of my school projects only. It's a great little camera for the beginner. It's relatively low maintenance, has an acceptable zoom lens and it's extremely easy to load.

The lens I got from the school's scoopics really aren't anything to get excited about, as these cameras really do take a beating from students. But if you can fine one that's been taken care of and has a clean lens without scratches, it's a good buy for those smaller MOS projects.
  • 0

#16 Thomas Worth

Thomas Worth
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 372 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 27 December 2006 - 04:05 AM

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the fact that the Scoopic splits the image from the lens through a prism to feed both the film and the viewfinder. That's why there's no shutter flicker in the viewfinder while shooting. I've read that this is the primary reason the max transmission of the lens is T2.5. So, keep in mind the image is ultimately coming off a prism and not directly from the lens.
  • 0

#17 Zachary Vex

Zachary Vex
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 December 2006 - 04:12 AM

Excellent point. I love my Scoopic for the human-eye-like response of the auto-iris and the easy (and immediate) operation, but the viewfinder is so dim as a result of the prism that I rarely use it anymore. I'm in my mid-forties and I need to be able to see at a reasonable brightness in order to focus (I work that way) so my Scoopic is getting more and more lonely, while my Aaton has become my absolute favorite.
  • 0

#18 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 27 December 2006 - 03:19 PM

I just realized how the Scoopic's lens was able to compete in perceived sharpness with the Zeiss lens - it's the modern lens coating, cutting down on flare and increasing contrast. The lens itself does not resolve as many lines/mm, but the increased contrast creates the perception of more sharpness. Also, I realized we would always use hard light, undiffused fresnels.


The 12.5-75mm Canon and its S16 sister the 14-85mm also incorporate flourite elements which corrects chromatic abberations on the long end.

The Zeiss is also using multi-coating.

The Canon is simply a good lens, even if the Scoopic is an amateur-like camera.
  • 0

#19 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 29 December 2006 - 04:28 AM

Any zoom or other heavy lens (telephotos) requires a lens support if used on a standard Arri (non S/B) type turret mount as the only thing on those type camera mounts holding the lens in are two little spring loaded ears at the back of the turret hole.

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for the info on the turret. Would you say the same thing about the steel Bayonet mount on the Arri S/B (which we were using)? I imagine the mount itself should be able to take the weight (I've seen the huge Cooke 18-100 T3 zoom in Bayo mount, after all), but the turret must be the weak link in the chain right?

Then what about the turret on the 35mm Arri 2C? Will it be just as weak as the turret on the Arri S/B?
  • 0

#20 chuck colburn

chuck colburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Other
  • orygun

Posted 29 December 2006 - 01:33 PM

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for the info on the turret. Would you say the same thing about the steel Bayonet mount on the Arri S/B (which we were using)? I imagine the mount itself should be able to take the weight (I've seen the huge Cooke 18-100 T3 zoom in Bayo mount, after all), but the turret must be the weak link in the chain right?

Then what about the turret on the 35mm Arri 2C? Will it be just as weak as the turret on the Arri S/B?


Good morning Satsuki,

Your observations on the S/B mount are correct.
The stainless bayonet (S/B) mount was designed for just this reason. I would use a lens support with the Cooke as it it rather heavy.
If I remember correctly some of the 2C turrets with S/B mounts in them had little locking levers on the turret to help hold them flush to the body and keep them from wanting rotate under the weight of heavy lenses. But it's been some time now since I did camera repair (the sixties thru the nineties) so I might be mistaken.
If in doubt, support the lens.

Have a happy new year,

Chuck
  • 0


Willys Widgets

Opal

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

CineLab

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS