Hi there!

There are many options out there, but I'm afraid nothing in the 1000 dollar price range if you want full cinema quality.

An Arri SR3, which is a Super16mm camera (which is what most film schools use, unless they use 35mm), costs about 90 grand to buy. For this reason, most productions don't buy cameras-- they rent them. (You can get good deals on this-- I got a full SR3 kit from Arri, including tracks, tripod, lenses, 3 magazines, etc, over a four-day period for 450 dollars).

This sort of camera is what you would use to get cinema-quality, but then you also need cinema quality lenses (which, as you can see, are included in my quote above). Lenses, more than anything, are what is important here.

BUT there are, fortunately, other options.

1) Get a Bolex. These are great for learning to shoot film on, can usually be cheap (around the 1000 dollar mark), and are easy to use. (DO NOT buy the cheapest you find-- these usually have mechanical problems). Peter Jackson's "Bad Taste" was shot on a bolex, and I think "El Mariachi" was as well. (Keep in mind the difference between Super16 and 16mm... Super16 is 16:9, 16mm is 4:3 aspect ratio-- and most Bolex cams shoot 16mm).

2) Rent for the duration of your shoot (this means a lot of planning).
3) Shoot on digital. (In this case, I would recommend either a DSLR or renting a RED, as you can still use cine-lenses).

Please also keep in mind that you will have to buy film stock, and develop it, and transfer it to tape for edit-- this is a costly process, so make sure you talk to your local film lab beforehand. I'm sure if you ask nicely, they will cut you a deal.

Hope that helps!

Read my Production Blog!
www.mazinpower.com

Bolex - the great workhorse of 16mm. Many different models
to choose from. The "H-16" is the first 16mm camera I bought and
I still use it. You can usually find them for not much money.

Beaulieu - the "R16" is one of my favorites. They are great
cameras with a beautiful lens and used are very inexpensive. Its a
little loud, but can be quited with a barney.

Eclair - the NPR is the camera many film schools use. Rugged,
solid and quiet.

Canon - the Scoopic was the standard in TV news cameras in
the 1970's. Easy to use. Another film school staple. Before video,
every film student used the reliable Scoopic before moving up to
the Eclair.

CP-16 - a really nice, solid camera with crystal sync and most
come with an excellent Angenieuz zoom lens. These were used for
news gathering for decades.

With the Aaton and Arriflex we're getting pricey. These
are high end, pro cameras worth knowing about. These are usually
rentals - even used they can run above $10,000 - but it's worth
knowing about them.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

What about the Bell and Howell 70-DR? It doesn't have a reflex finder, but it is a reliable son of a gun.

If the original question was to satisfy curiosity (or settle a bet: "can you shoot a real movie on a $1k film camera?"), then you likely got your answer.

Mazinpower touched on an issue that is more important here, and that is the actual cost of shooting a movie on film (even if you get a camera and equipment for free). Even with most careful planning of shots, you'll still end up shooting at least 5 hours of film stock, which will end up costing between $15k-$20k. That amount of money will actually let you BUY your decent digital camera (either DSLR with some nice lenses, or semi-pro video with a zoom lens), plus some basic lights, shotgun mics, etc, not to mention several memory cards that will let you shoot much more than 5 hours of film. And after the shoot is done, the equipment is yours for the next project.

Oh, and if a moderator happens to read this, is it possible to get rid of the post above (BrendonClifton)? It makes absolutely no sense and looks like a plug for some services (although I'm not quite sure what kind...).

If you are talking about a budget of $1,000 dollars, then you don't want to shoot film. Film is way too expensive for a low-budget anyway. The way to go is HD.
Check out the Canon HV40 or a simular camera.

To shoot film even 16mm is very expensive.
A 400' roll of Negative film 500t fuji is from $125 - $200.
That's 11 minutes of film. The film Developing is about .22 a foot. To Digitize the footage for editing can be fron .20 to .78 a foot depending on where, and how good of quality you want. So for 11 minutes of editable film your looking at. about $350 dollars.

You can shoot reversal film, and that will cut your cost in Developing to about $250, but you will give up the look and feel that MODERN DAY film can give you.

THe only way to go on the cheap, and still get close to professional quality for a $1,000 is HD.

Myfilm"Shadow of Crime"
Trailer:
http://www.vimeo.com/4103913
Where to buy:Shadow of crime
https://www.createspace.com/288191

Rjames,

That's an interesting post on why NOT to shoot film. But lapatrie
asked about film cameras. Do you have any suggestions about
film cameras?

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)