Michael Lehnert

Thanks for elaborating on that and specifying the terminology. I appreciate that. With press packs and even industry news less and less concerned about precise reporting, an exact and clarifying source is worth a billion bucks. :) I fear, however, that noone outside this board's circle might unfortunately care wether the color reproduction in "The Aviator" was bang on or like an attempt to reproduce a Monet with watercolours. Evoking the atmosphere of it is probably enough for many to be satisfied with the effect. This also touches the point again that digital-post "film emulations" of earlier real-life "film emulsions" cannot reach or reproduce the original but are more like 2nd hand memories of an old story: a vague impression of how it seemed to be, but nowhere close to the original. So, maybe if this realisation would be understood at some time in the future, filmmakers might want to shoot their 1970/80s period dramas on original new K-40, VNF or Eastmancolor often enough to make a business case for Kodak Park. B)

You are absolutely right, they are really rare. As they were sold in not unsizeable quantities (yet less than most other cams, nevertheless), I hence assume that those who have one want to keep it. Because of the rarity, it's also not very prominently known and hence seems to be a bit underrated ? especially as most people think of Bolex as being the H-series cameras. I think this machine is really magical, and so advanced it's really amazing. It's also phantastic to operate, anything but cantankerous, as is sometimes said with respect to the automatic controls that it offers in additon to full manual. Sometimes I am inclined to think it's a bit like a morph between a Panaflex and a Super 8 camera. I could go on and on, but will stop short. I intend to post material from the Bolex 16 Pro and start a thread on it when I have this side of my 16mm equipment sorted out. Will take some time, though.

That is a very interesting idea, and would be a beautifully elegant solution for aesthetical visions for film projects, too. Artistically, it would make great sense! I would also not rule out that some "visionary suit" (an oxymoron?) at Kodak might green-flag such an idea, in the appropriate business context and with good business timing. However, I fear that this won't be anytime soon (as in "decades"). As long as chemical film producers like Kodak, Fuji and Polaroid have to fight an uphill struggle to convince other "suits" that cine-film has qualities that go beyond the basic numerical comparison to video formats (the K's, as it was put), they will be forced to continue fighting on what is in effect video's marketing battlefield: trying to increase resolution and push color reproduction in light with telecine technology. And if you look at what Robert Richardson did in recreating the look of two and three stripe Technicolor for "The Aviator" digitally, it will be hard to convince people that the old recipes need to be revived. It would be interesting to see side-by-side how the scenes would differ if originally shoot on vintage Technicolor and done in post with Vision or Vision2, though. Re. those HD'd K-40 pictures above: I must admit that I was not terribly unhappy to see K-40 go, at least for Super 8, as that film stock's dominance was really hindering this format to develop further as a cinematographic medium (at least here in Europe). But seeing these pics make me quite itchy to see more K-40 shots, again. I second the motion for full resolution frames, Will.

It is indeed, of course (though not as silent as an Aaton X-series camera).

Good point. Seeing Tati's "Play Time" on Criterion's DVD edition made me feel lusting for 65mm and 70mm cinema projection, but we are in the wrong forum for discussing that. Try again :D . Actually, wait: how would you compare the Nikon R10 against that one regarding mechanics and optical resolving power of the lens. Similar, or is the Nikon R10 more capable?

Hearhear! Someone with something enlightening to say! Thanks, Toby! Funnily enough, my path was not dissimilar. Although having known ciné-film (mostly Super 8) from the filmmaking of my older brother and his film group, my first films were on on video too (even S-VHS-C, years back then!). Super 8 was the logical next step after video was just ... unsatisfactory for the imagined visions. And over the time, 16mm joined in through my brother (again): First via a Beaulieu R16 (a sort of initiation camera from which one moves on rather rapidly), then the superb Eclair ACL. My personal dreams of an Aaton XOplus were not really financiable (on any side of the Channel!), but 400 Euros bought me a Bolex 16 Pro from someone how decided to move his production company to video-only ... he might regret having lost the ciné-film option now... or maybe not... And I have never looked back since then. Actually, with the "revolution evolution" going on in the Super 8 sector, and both Normal 16 and Super 16 undergoing a revamp as well, one could say that the timing to start discovering ciné-film couldn't be better.

Really? Damn, I thought the same about the places I left to come to the UK, me fool!?! (Don't worry, I am Western European, no Polish plumber, even heterosexual and no longer shoot video) And just because I love US-style megalomanic franchise sequels with British actors and crew all over it, the same once again: I think your paths of glory have just been opened up for you by yourself. Need a lift to Heathrow or Dover? Now, shall we return to the topic of how difficult it is to USE 16mm? What about my self-loading Bolex 16 Pro? Anyone interested in discussing that?

Yes, you have a series 2 model (which uniquely feature the 'UWL' marking) No, series 2 models have a thread of 67mm in diameter. I just wanted to double-check on that (it's listed in the manual). You can easily measure the diameter with a simple metering rule, just to be absolutely certain. The lenses used on Nizo 6080 series 1 and series 2 are quite different constructions. The series 1 version of the Schneider Macro-Variogon 1:1,4 / 7-80 mm is also found on the Nizo 4080, while the variation used for the Nizo 6080 series 2 is unique to it. Considering the reported problems of some series 2 lenses having reduced optical resolving power due to lackluster quality control, I would want to avoid putting "more cheap glass" in front of it. I think your Nizo 6080 would hence merit a Tiffen or B+W :)

Well, the Kodapak Coaxial Instamatic-Cartridge wasn't really the "Normandie" of engineering efforts, but it isn't the "Titanic" either! Actually, though not without problems, the cartridge is much better than its reputation. And technical changes to it as seen in form of the Russian reloadable cartridges or Gottfried Klose's FrameMaster device havn't really produced much better results (quite often on the contrary). In my experience ? apart from the recent cases of carelessly loading raw film into the cartridges which were too thick and hence caused jamming ? problems with frame stability or incorrect film transport I heard of or saw were in effect mostly caused by badly or non-maintained cameras rather than the much maligned cartridge. Once the cameras were serviced, cartridges from the same batch produced great results. That such a design would not work in 16mm and 35mm is a fair claim. However, remember the many cartridge-based 16mm formats by Bell & Howell or Siemens that did not succeed in the market because manufacturers wouldn't gamble on potential "island solutions": their mechanical workings were well R&D'd, just as the cartridge for Super 8. And after all, the cartridge allows Super 8 to offer a serious and unique proposition. No other ciné-film format can play the 'easy-to-handle'-principle in so many ways (size, readiness, usability, quality, fx, publicity, HR) so thoroughly to its advantage. (And just before someone mentions something otherwise: Double Super 8 and Single 8 are not without problems either, despite the concerted efforts by their user base that suggest that they are essentially impeccable). Kevin, I sincerely hope you can track down a Mekel. I can't wait to finally see a film shot in it. That would be a very interesting thing to experience. Please keep us posted. Let's also see what Gottfried Klose has up his sleeves with regard to his supposedly all-new cartridge design (hope that fares better than the ill-fated Cinevia start-up).

I see your point and agree with you (incl. the content of your posting on the other thread that caused resentment). However, if civility and respect for the other in communication breaks down, than the to-be-transmitted content might get buried with the form. And that helps no one. B) Hmm, so I assume the entire mechanism was messed up and would have necessitated major repair. Still, I am sure it could have been put to order quite easily if a technician wants to and knows how to do it. Disagree here, as I like to keep my equipment in pristine condition. Costs aren't that prohibitive, spare parts are amazingly readily available, and the knowledge that the tools are working fine at every moment is priceless, too. I guess I prefer to treat top gear cameras similarly to top gear cars: treat them well, and they just run and run and run. Just buying a new Super 8 camera off eBay and slaughter its life out of it for one film project only, then throw it out isn't my thing. Ciné-film cameras are amazing things, and can be kept alive with very little effort. As long as that effort is regular CLA. Any clip available :D . Interesting though, how often today's viewers don't notice major visual imperfections anymore: out-of-focus theatre projections, ill-focused shots, ill-exposure etc. The irony, considering that we bring this up in a thread dedicated to the "sharpest" gear for Super 8... I don't know why but when I read your above line on Plus-X, I thought of Anton Corbijn's "Never Let Me Down Again" video clip for Depeche Mode... beautiful imagery! And Corbijn used Super 8 already when people were throwing their gear away to buy into S-VHS-C and Betacam... But let's get back to the topic...

The thread of the Schneider Macro-Variogon 1:1,4 / 7-80 mm lens fitted to the Nizo 6080 is 67mm. So you would need filter "00072567 Hama Polarising Filter Circular, 67,0 mm" for 34 Sterling. However, may I suggest to maybe avoid purchasing a filter by Hama and rather go for one made by B+W or Tiffen? They are more expensive, but of a visibly better quality. Depending on what you are shooting on Super 8, this might be a worthwhile investment. By the way: do you own a Nizo 6080 (series 2) above whiches lens you find the 'UWL' marking inbetween the '0' and 'macro' markings, or do you have one without the 'UWL' marking (a series 1)?

:lol: Well, let's settle for that indeed, stating to the public that because of the nature of the "Nikon thingy", it should not be referred to as a registration pin but maybe rather as something along the line of dual spring-pressured drag claws. ...and of course, not many 16/35mm cameras feature a simple pull-down claw movement as found on most Super 8 cameras. Rather more sophisticated mechanism are used such as simple or dual pull-down intermittent systems (which actively retract), or pull-down/pin reg'd systems, or a co-planar movement, or a rotary prism system or whatever else engineers patented for their companies... I think we disagreed on so many agreements, we should just get out and run a cartridge through a camera ? just for the sake of it, as a sort of therapeutic measure to get over "reg pin exhaustion". ;) Wouldn't you agree that this is one of the quality pillars of this forum here ;) ? Was there a mechanical problem with the springs, or did the lubrication go so bad that it could not be salvaged? Also, in what way was the footage unstable, if I may ask. Was it permanently unstable, with every frame being equally off, or was there a longer period of stable frames and then unstable frames?

You are welcome. I was expecting that, Mitch. Anything else would have been a disappointment. B) Hmm, that's interesting. On the Nikon R10 which I know (not my own, but a fellow filmmaker's one) which was also used for the testing project I described above, the "Nikon thingy" you regard as a 'registration pin' and I refer to as a "dual spring-pressured drag claws" does actually react as I described it. This is especially odd as that Nikon R10 gets annual CLA jobs in Germany! :blink: In whatever way we look at it, my memory stands in opposition to your statement. :huh: As you own a Nikon R10 and I only have access to my memory about dry-shooting with one, I shall give you right and continue my line of argumentation based on your description, namely that the forward "Nikon thingy" is always protruded in normal filming. BTW, the owner is also convinced that it's a reg pin, as every Nikon R10 owner seems to be :P . So let's return to that discussion: Sure, a simple pull-down claw system features passive retraction depending on make and model. I haven't come across a co-planar movement in a Super 8 camera yet, either (which is something of a shame, actually... ;) ). But the point we are discussing here is not if the "Nikon thingy" "engages" (I use your words now to avoid any semantic communication error, okay?) the perforation at all: by being out in the film path, it will engage contact with the cartridged raw film and its perforation in any way because of its mere physical presence. Nor are we discussing if its retraction is passive. It must be passive, as the "Nikon thingy" is obviously disconnected from the pull-down system and only spring-pressured. Both you and me have agreed on that in the earlier reply post already. The point we are discussing here is whether the initial "engagement" (and not the forthfollowing retraction) is either an active, motor-driven and pull-down-coordinated motion with the clear intent to slide into the perforation and stabilise and/or freeze the frame by pushing it against the film gate, as a device IIRC referred to as a 'registration pin' would normally do; or whether the "Nikon thingy" is more of a passive device that is merely spring-pressuredly "lurking out" of its slot and being dragged over the perforation while the film runs over it (as you said yourself when you described the "Nikon thingy" and ran the piece of film over it by hand). The latter would namely mean that the level of engagement, the degree of penetration into the perf hole is significantly different at varying speed of filming (thus indicating rather frame "support" than frame "freeze" during filming), and that the disconnection from the motorised pull-down system and the passive spring-pressure-only force that engages it into the perf hole could not be in any way comparable to what a registration pin (as described above) intends to accomplish. You are arguing for the first part, that the "Nikon thingy" is a registration pin. However, you do also state yourself that actually it is a completely passive device. And that statement of yours would actually mean and substantiate that it is not a registration pin but could rather better be described as "dual spring-pressured drag claws". That is what Tony Hudson and I argue for, as a registration pin is an actively-driven device. Your question... ...gives the anwer: As I wrote before, "a registration pin is usually an integral part of the transport mechanism, has its mechanical movement combined and coordinated with the pull-down system, actively (as in "driven"!) engaging the perforation and thus pushing the to-be-exposed frame against the film gate in order to stop and freeze it." Rest assured, I am not saying that the "Nikon thingy" might not provide some form of frame support. But I would not go as far and claim that it is a registration pin, as this invokes a dimension of mechanical intent that the "Nikon thingy" does not even set out to achieve. To be frank (and I say this well knowing that the Nikon R10 has a quite resolute and fearsome fandom in the "cloud"), from my experience of Nikon R10 footage, both for film projects and the test film orgy I mentioned earlier in this thread, I just cannot say that the frame stability of a CLA'd Nikon R10 footage I saw over the past years is superior to other S8 cameras. (and although I could start to get annoyingly repetitive, I must mention again that a reg pin is not ? although all too often assumed ? about absolute (!) better frame stability. Frame stability variance in cameras can be better without it featuring a reg pin.) Now, you asked... ...so I offered, in line with above argumentation, what this "Nikon thingy" device might be best useful for apart from a questionable and (IMHO invisible) frame support in normal filming. I established the theory outside of the reg pin idea (and in line with Nikons "literature") as well as well bearing in mind that ? as you state yourself ? ...that one possible use could relate to the semi-automatic double exposure-based effect features in order to fixate the film at all costs. Especially when reward filming, which is when the other drag claw is protruding au lieu of the "forward" one. My theory would make sense in respect to then-scepticism towards the film being forcefully wound back into the cartridge chambers for these effects. You are of course right by stating that... ... but then again, as a reg pin in a 16SR-series is only a further device ameliorating the frame stability possible with the used pull-down system, so might it be the case that the "Nikon thingy" is only a further device fixing the effect's starting/stopping frame in the film gate. And I don't want to be a jerk disagreeing with the reg pin theory, as the "Nikon thingy" is just not straight and simply what would be correctly described as a reg pin! The heated debates that raged on that matter showcase that it's not that clear-cut. And the circumstance that whenever someone (usually a Nikon R10 owner :) ) shouts "reg pin" other people beg to differ straight away should give those shouters something to think about. New books claiming that the Nikon R10 is a mecha-wonderwork à la Mitchell with two double registration pins aren't helping here either! <_< I (and friends, colleagues and even family!) have been like raiders of the lost ark trying to figure out what the **** Nikon was hoping to achieve with the "Nikon thingy". Correspondence with Nippon Kokagu a colleague initiated years ago lead to nothing, so there isn't any help coming from the manufacturer (so far). Somehow, the grizzly feeling is creeping up my spine that we won't be able to convince each other that it's (not) a reg pin :) . Actually, we might not come to any conclusion on that matter at all, just as many lost souls before us haven't ;) . Would you agree with that, Mitch?

Hmm, actually, let me be more precise: they are quite similar, but the Nizo professional offers some more and unique functions. But these are clearly separate and hence don't inflict on understanding how the S800 works. :rolleyes: :D

An excellent resource is Bjarne Eldhuset's http://www.super8.no/manuals.html You will find a PDF version of the Manual for the Nizo S800 under the file name "Nizo_S560_S800_User manual_German". Unfortunately, the document is in German. However, if you also download the English manual for the Nizo professional just above, you will be able to transfer the content and knowledge easily onto the S800. Both cameras are very similar if not nearly identical. If you have any further questions, feel free to post them here. I am familiar with both cameras and can also help out with German translations, if needed. Enjoy your S800, -Michael

Oops, sorry Mitch, please accept my apologies. I know Mike's pictures as much as the real thing. There have been endless debates about that time and again, and many Nikon R10's had "open-heart-surgeries" performed to get behind the internal construction. Your description of the "Nikon thingy" (let's call it like that for now) is bang on precise... ...but that touches the difference! Tony Hudson has elaborated on that absolutely correctly: a registration pin is usually an integral part of the transport mechanism, has its mechanical movement combined and coordinated with the pull-down system, actively (as in "driven"!) engaging the perforation and thus pushing the to-be-exposed frame against the film gate in order to stop and freeze it. As I wrote earlier above, not every transport mechanism needs this kind of additional stabilisation and featuring it does not necessarily mean that its frame stability will be superb. Some Arriflex 16SR-series cameras need it because their patented transport mechanisms would allow for too much variance of the frame stability, while Aaton and some Eclair cameras feature a patented transport mechanism that makes the use of an additional device unnecessary. So again: pin registration per se does not necessarily mean that the frame stability is superior. Even with a reg pin, the Arriflex 16SR II is visibly inferior in respect to frame stability than Aatons or an Eclair ACL. I fear this will be a question that future generations of cinematography.com members will raise again and again, and rightly so. Nevertheless, let's try to recapitulate: What are these mysterious two additional "pins" for which are located in a separate slot underneath the regular single pull-down claw (as found in any other Super 8 camera)? As Nikon did not bother to publish an exact term for them, they could best be described as "dual spring-pressured drag claws". When the camera is running conventionally, they are inactive. However, when the semi-automatic double exposure-based effect features (like lap dissolves, multiple exposures and rewind filming, to quote the Nikon R10 brochure of 8/1974) are activated, these two claws become active and do protrude: the upper one in forward mode only, the lower one in reverse mode only. Again, they are not actively driven in any way: as the film moves, they get dragged over the film perforation. Because of their disconnection from the pull-down system, they are not really able to slide into the perforation at normal filming speed in order to stabilise and/or freeze the frame, as a registration pin would otherwise do. They only truly slide into one perforation hole and "fixate it" when the film movement, i.e. the camera, stops. This hinders the stopped film from potentially slipping by one or maybe two frames. It might come under pressure to do so because for such double exposure-based effects, a piece of film 90 to 100 frames long is wound back "by force" into the cartridge chambers. As the cartridge wasn't originally designed for this, it was believed that under certain circumstances, the wound-back film might force its way back, thus moving or pushing away the frame currently placed at the film gate. As the Nikon R10 was one of the first cameras in the Super 8 sector to offer these features in a semi-automatic package, it was a real testing ground for this kind of features (which would become standard on better cameras later on). The necessity for such overengineering remains somewhat questionable, however, as no other Super 8 camera seems to have the need to keep the film "at bay" during such operations (though Nizo manuals continued to warn about potential jamming later on). As Nikon never advertised their unique construction in any way, one could conclude that this is an orignally ingenious attempt to tackle a potential problem that never really materialised on set or on location. (By the way, Mitch, loved your article in Super 8 Today #5 from last summer. Great work: Respect!)

Pete, not sure if you found an answer to your question somewhere else. In case you didn't, please allow me to reply: Elmo ? like Eumig and Bauer ? indeed produced several projectors that could take both Super 8/Single 8 and Regular 8. Unfortunately, your Elmo ST-180E isn't one of those. Normally, dual-format projectors feature a clearly indicated switch marked S8/R8 or S8/N8 (N8 stands for the German "Normal 8") either on the outer casing or inside the projector close to the film transport mechanics in order to change between the two formats. Look out for that one if you are unsure in the future.

Many early projects of the film group I am now part of were shot with a Sankyo (we are talking 1982/83 here). I think it was a mid-level model, and although serving well, it too was never held in very high esteem. Actually, it wasn't even regarded as equal to the Canon 514 XL that was also in use then. Needless to say that the replacement was a Bauer C 700 XLM. Actually, when looking at these older films, the quality the Sankyo delivered isn't bad at all, and the camera survived really weird shooting set-ups. But I must admit the Bauer's Macro-Neovaron 1:1,2 / 7-45mm lens (Japanese-made too!) is visibly better. However, I would agree that in some circles, there is a bit of "badge-snobbery" going on with regard to Japanese products. It's basically the same as with automobile makes. It seems to me that the US market was always more open-minded to Japanese or Asian products than parts of the European market, but I might be wrong.

Yep, first posting indeed, this is already the fifth. How time flies... ;) On the Leitz Leicina Super RT-1, exposure lock is activated by pressing down the knurled button on the topside of the camera (it's the rearmost one in the "black plastic basket" that also houses the electric zoom controls). The f-stop is held as long as you press down this button. If you need a more permanent lock of this f-stop, just turn the button clockwise while pressing it down. This arrests exposure lock permanently. On the Leitz Leicina Special, automatic exposure control is switched off by setting the button on the case of the Leitz Leicinamatic to 'manual'.

Hi Alex, I remember the Canon shootings well (while I happily forgot some others ? like Beaulieu 6008 against Beaulieu 7008...) because it was personal for me: my brother owns one so I was interested on how these two would fair (we also ran those against the Canon DS-8, the one derived from the Scoopic). Personally, I would say that the differences between these two were truly negligible (but then again, I need to wear glasses when driving a car, so who am I to say anything at all ;) However, we had a studied engineer in the panel who was adamant that at the extremes of the focal range, the Canon Macro 1:1,4 / 7-56mm had to be marginally superior in avoiding aberrations. We abided and the 814 gets mentioned before the 1014. I see these two Canons on equal standing, and a future article for Super 8 Today will make this clear. Should have mentioned that in my posting! Sorry for any confusion, folks! I agree with you that the shorter focal length of the 1014 can be crucial for some shots. I once used a Nizo 2056 sound for interior shots with commag sound system, and found myself begging for an extra "1mm" in the wide angle :) .

Thanks, Tony, for pointing that out! (although I assume Mitch made a joke). After all, this topic has been clubbed to death when "Santo" was still posting here and on "the other forum". Just to make sure: despite what even some fairly recent (and otherwise high-quality) book publications state, the Nikon R10 does neither have a registration pin, nor a double registration pin, and certainly not two double registration pins! The Nikon R10 is not a Mitchell S35!! To give a brief laydown on pin registration generally: Pin registration does not necessarily mean that the frame stability or registration is "better" in absolute terms. Pin registration is more about ameliorating frame stability for specific patented transport mechanisms. That's why it is used in some cameras, while others achieve better frame stability without the help of a registration pin ? all this differs from camera to camera. To make a comparative example: cameras for 16mm as recent as the Arriflex 16SR II (of 1992) that features pin registration have a registration variance per frame of 0.013mm whereas the Aaton X-series achieves spectacular 0.005mm without a registration pin. And even the latter's spiritual predecessor, the Eclair ACL of 1971 achieves 0.010mm without pin registration (cf. camera spec sheets and Samuelson's).

Just to put up a lengthy reply to your original question, Matthew: As it's such a frequent question, I just submitted a series of articles to Chris from Super 8 Today that touches on that subject. I was part of a project where we shot nearly a hundred S8 cartridges for the testing of film stocks and cameras of various make and age - all with regular CLA (cleaned, lubricated, adjusted/collimated)! The test films were then projected up to 16ft wide in a screening room and discussed. (We also put S8 and DS8 side-by-side, and I've not been as overwhelmed by DS8 as I hoped I would be, but that's another point). Discussing sharpness is a fuzzy topic. There are so many parameters that determine every shot: light condition, shutter opening angle, aperture, exposure time, film pressure and flatness, mechanical transportation and registration, and film development. Even when boiling it down to camera-mechanical excellence body-wise and optical resolving power lens-wise, it's still virtually impossible to come up with a definitive answer. I know this can be a potentially heated topic as many cameras have real love/hate-fandoms here in the "cloud", but from the tests we made, the best combined results for S8 vario lenses (!) on S8 cameras came from the - Schneider Optivaron 1:1,8 / 6-66mm on the Beaulieu 4008 ZM II (C-Mount) and Leitz Leicina Special (M-Mount) - Angénieux f/1,2 | T/1,4-2,1 / 6-80mm (C-Mount) for Beaulieu 4008 and 5008-series - Schneider Macro-Variogon 1:1,8 / 6-70mm on the Bauer A 512 - Schneider Macro-Variogon 1:1,8 / 7-80mm on the Nizo professional - Canon Macro 1:1,4 / 7-56mm on the Canon 814XL-S As there wasn't a Nalcom 1000 FTL (with Pentax-Mount) and an Elmo 1018R involved, I can't comment on those, Matthew. Sorry :( I don't share the view that newer glass is necessarily better than older glass. Actually, S8 vario lenses (!) by Angénieux and Schneider put on cameras from 1978/9 onwards suffer from serious quality deficits that troubled late generation Beaulieu and Nizo sound cameras. When it comes to prime lenses used on S8 cameras with interchangeable lens option, that's another ball game: The Schneider Macro-Variogon 1:1.8 / 10mm is excellent and probably the best prime calculated and designed specifically for the S8 format ? it's also the only one as far as I know (please correct me) :) . However, it obviously can't compete against a Cooke S4 or Zeiss Ultra 16. But then again, that REALLY is another ball game, as Daniel showed with "Halogenuros".

Hello Alex, maybe I can help out with your question: It's the Leitz Leicina Super and its upgrade, the Leitz Leicina Super RT-1 that have only automatic exposure control (but with exposure lock and a plus/minus one f-stop adjustment). They also don't have an interchangeable lens option. The Leitz Leicina Special is the one that accepts interchangeable lenses with M-Mount. Its standard Schneider Leicina-Optivaron 1:1,8 / 6-66mm features the Leitz Leicinamatic attached to the lens which allows automatic exposure control. It can be switched off for manual aperture control (through an f-stop setting ring on the lens). When any other lens is mounted on the Special, only manual aperture control is possible. In the viewfinder, a follow pointer indicates the relative TTL exposure level which you need to adjust on the lens' f-stop setting ring.