The Mark II was very light but other cameras prevailed

~
Feel free to discuss any topic related to the Mitchell Camera. Both 35 mm and 16 mm models are welcomed here. Also consider posting topics of other major motion picture cameras that you feel are important to the development of the Mitchell Camera.

Update: You may have noticed that we have returned to just one category as opposed to dividing the forum into 7 different areas. Apparently, it was an unpopular change and returning to the old format will allow posters to find their submissions more easily.
~
samsonwillerd

The Mark II was very light but other cameras prevailed

Postby samsonwillerd » Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:05 am

Hello! I've been seeing some recent posts referencing the Mark II and believe it is was of the finest machines Mitchell ever made. It is beyond me why it never became as popular as some of the other hand held 35 mm cameras that were taking the industry by storm in the late 60's. Has anyone here had on the set experience with the Mark II?

I can completely understand why the Mitchell BNCR (refex) had a limited life as it was too little too late and the trend became lighter is better so allow cameramen to run up stairs and so on and place cameras wherever needed. But the Mark II was perfectly light and portable. Was the price point just too high at the time? I've included some pictures of MY favorite camera.

SW
Attachments
mark II blimp 4.jpg
mark II blimp 4.jpg (113.2 KiB) Viewed 1675 times
mark II blimp 5.jpg
mark II blimp 5.jpg (94.49 KiB) Viewed 1675 times
mark II blimp.jpg
mark II blimp.jpg (115.54 KiB) Viewed 1675 times
mark II blimp 2.jpg
mark II blimp 2.jpg (118.35 KiB) Viewed 1675 times
mark II blimp 3.jpg

lolly

Re: The Mark II was very light but other cameras prevailed

Postby lolly » Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:35 pm

Dude, if you are into the Mark II, here is a link to the original brochure. Just FYI, everybody liked shooting with the Mark II.

http://www.mitchellcamera.com/brochures ... ochure.pdf

mitchell-MK-ll.jpg

lolly

brucermorgan
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: The Mark II was very light but other cameras prevailed

Postby brucermorgan » Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:13 pm

These pictures of the Mark 2 ,especially in hand held mode , are excellent !
Thanks for posting them .
regards
Bruce

35mmKing

Re: The Mark II was very light but other cameras prevailed

Postby 35mmKing » Wed Aug 27, 2014 4:09 pm

OK, so you may call me nuts but while looking at the MK II brochure link at this web site, I noticed that on the back page where they list accessories - the power supply was stamped "discontinued" Then I remembered seeing that power supply listed at Cinemagear.com.

Seems to me that Cinemagear has it VASTLY under priced as it went out of production shortly after the MK II was released.

And take a look at the condition - it looks brand new. Wish I had some extra cash on hand but as it don't - So I thought I would pass this steal of a deal to the next forum member. I have uploaded a photo showing the two. You could triple your money on this rig.

King
Attachments
discontinued-R35-charger-br.jpg
discontinued_power_R35.jpg

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 7:13 pm

Re: The Mark II was very light but other cameras prevailed

Postby admin » Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:09 pm

By 1962 the Mark I as well as the Mitchell R35 had transitioned into the Mitchell Mark II. Later in 1965, the Mark II was replaced with the S35R (Silent 35 Reflex). The R35, early Mark I and S35Rs had 3 lens turrets but later models had a single lens with a "hard front' (1)

1. Carlson, Verne and Sylvia; Professional Cameraman's Handbook, 1981 Revised Edition, Amphoto, New York, N.Y.


Factoid-Banner.jpg

justinwizard

Re: The Mark II was very light but other cameras prevailed

Postby justinwizard » Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:07 pm

Ah yes, the hard front. Forgot about that term. Having said that, somewhat of an odd name they came up with. Thank you for the factoid mr. admin.

Be well,
Justin
Attachments
hard front 2.jpg
hard front 2.jpg (96.68 KiB) Viewed 1629 times

justinwizard

Re: The Mark II was very light but other cameras prevailed

Postby justinwizard » Fri Sep 05, 2014 10:30 am

Hello all. I found this great photo of Howard Hawks and a Mitchell Mark II in action.

Be well,
Justin
Attachments
howard hawks mitchell mark II.jpg
howard hawks mitchell mark II.jpg (151.29 KiB) Viewed 1607 times

35mmKing

Re: The Mark II was very light but other cameras prevailed

Postby 35mmKing » Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:26 pm

Hey gang, go on over to Rudi's place for a great Mark II( http://www.calkovsky.com ). I have attached his text and pictures. PS: for a real treat, enlarge the picture of that eccentric movement!

mitchell_mk2_3.jpg

mitchell_mk2_2.JPG

mitchell_mk2_5.JPG

mitchell_mk2_4.jpg

Second owner; purchased from Cinevision in New York about 14 years ago. The camera can be used for conventional shooting or Time Lapse/ Stop Motion work with the intervalometer. The main drive gear was replaced and the camera was converted to 16:9 with a new ground glass. The work was done by a professional cine company in Ca. About thirty thousand feet of film was shot since the new gear was installed. FULLY FUNCTIONAL WORKING ORDER! There is a film on vimeo that was shot with this camera - Out Here in the Fields. It's heavy! Packed in huge boxes ready to ship. ALL shipping costs paid by buyer.

DETAILS

R35 MITCHELL MARK II 35MM MOVIE CAMERA, #113
MATTE BOX, MAG, CASE.

The accessory package:

Single Frame Motor w/ Norris intervelometer
12v Variable Speed motor and additional 110v Variable Speed motor up to 36fps
Magazines - 2- 400' top mount w/ throat, and 3- 400' back mount for hand held
Studio Matte Box w/ rods
3 lens turret or single lens hard front - interchangeable
Gel filter cutter for internal filters w/ filter holders
Matte cutter for inserting 35mm frames into viewing system
Two bridge plates - one w/follow focus, the other has been modified so it will accommodate the underslung (hand held) mags for normal use, There is also a special high hat for this purpose, included, but it doesn't have rod holders. [END]

King


Return to “General Discussions About the Mitchell Camera”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest