Jump to content


Photo

Considering a buy: K-3 - flashing concerns


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Mark A. Rapp

Mark A. Rapp
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 28 June 2016 - 05:26 PM

I'm having a ton of fun shooting with my new Bell & Howell 240 ee. I'm gearing up to buy something like an Arriflex SR2 or 3 for an upcoming feature but in the meantime I'm interested in something small, all about run and gun, and most importantly, with a reflex viewfinder.

 

This has led me to consideration of the affordable Krasnogorsk-3, converted to Super 16, with a re-centered lens. The package (package meaning camera only, apparently) runs about $230.00 USD shipped from Ukraine, sold on ebay. Which brings me to a few questions:

 

Is this a good price for the camera?

 

I have read about flashing and light leaks. Both issues seem to be common, which I assume to be a design flaw. I am not particularly interested in time-lapse photography, or single frame photography with this camera. Is the problem only when employing either of these methods?

 

If I understand it correctly, it can be "cured?" with profuse taping. Is this only for time lapse/animation, or for motion shooting as well?

 

It seems every single video of K-3 footage I see has flashes all over it. Literally. Every single one.

 

Here's what it boils down to: I want to be able to shoot takes for as long as the camera operates on a wind,  without having flashes or leaks wreck the take. Is it possible for the camera to do this? Does it require precautions? If so, what steps must I take to insure this?

 

I've read an awful lot on the forum about the K-3. The above issues are addressed, but they don't seem to be geared for the uninitiated. This isn't a criticism, just an observation from an un-initiate, heh. I read through, and feel as though I've walked into a conversation already in progress.

 

I've read that on an S16 converted K-3 the eyepiece cannot provide a faithful image to the new format frame due to prism issues. Would I be better served in keeping the original eyepiece and "dead reckoning" or having the mask removed completely, and completely guessing what my frame will be?

 

 


  • 0




#2 Mark A. Rapp

Mark A. Rapp
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 28 June 2016 - 06:15 PM

2 more questions:

 

Will the lens re-centering mod allow full use of the stock zoom all the way down to 17mm?

 

Will the viewfinder view be properly centered as well, regardless of viewable area, i.e., center of lens equal to center of viewfinder?


  • 0

#3 Mark A. Rapp

Mark A. Rapp
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 29 June 2016 - 10:38 PM

Easy, fellas! Not all at once! I know: too much above.

 

I've narrowed it down to two cameras.

 

One has the viewfinder mask removed. The other does not list the viewfinder mask as having been removed, so I'm assuming it is intact.

 

The price difference is negligible.

 

Any opinions?


  • 0

#4 Mark A. Rapp

Mark A. Rapp
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 30 June 2016 - 10:18 AM


The other does not list the viewfinder mask as having been removed, so I'm assuming it is intact.

 

 

Bought this one.


Edited by Mark A. Rapp, 30 June 2016 - 10:19 AM.

  • 0

#5 Jay Young

Jay Young
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 391 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Lexington KY

Posted 01 July 2016 - 10:34 AM

I feel $230 is a bit much, usually the recentering is done by the installation of a ring, and not actually new metal machine work to the body.

 

You can find these a bit cheaper.

The general guideline for buying Russian gear is that if it looks like it's been beat to hell, buy it; if it looks brand new in box, pass.

The gear that has been well used and looks it has been well used because it worked reliably.  The gear that is 'new in box' might have issues.


  • 0

#6 Mark A. Rapp

Mark A. Rapp
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 02 July 2016 - 09:15 AM

?

 

Even f you got the camera for $100.00 you'd be paying at least $125 - and that's a conservative figure -  for a Super conversion. This is converted already, in addition to the re-centered mount.

 

I should have been more clear, but it would have added to the already voluminous word count. I wasn't asking opinion regarding the price; the price is right.


  • 0

#7 Sv Bell

Sv Bell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Other
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 12 September 2016 - 01:39 PM

I was a bit sckeptical about the K-3 I've seen that were modified for Super 16, with recentered lens. I mean, it's probably well done by someone who knows how to modify these things, but I always feel it's better to keep a device just like it's been manufactured, in the original assembly chain.

 

So when I bought my Krasnogorsk-3 on Ebay, I picked a 'regular' 16mm camera, with a 1.33 frame aspect ratio. Instead, I purchased a Lomo anamorphic adapter, that will squeeze the image in a 2:1 ratio.

 

And 230$ seems a little bit too much, I got mine for 199$, including shipping from Ukraine to Canada.


Edited by Sv Bell, 12 September 2016 - 01:40 PM.

  • 0


Ritter Battery

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Zylight

Quantum Music Works

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Pro 8mm

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Quantum Music Works

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Pro 8mm

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Zylight