Ruotsalainen Werner

I’ve just received my third Double Super 8-modified Bolex H8 RX camera. This time, it came with a lens with the title “Optivaron 1.8/6-66mm für Leitz Leicina”. That is, it was originally M-mount and not C-mount. (I assume C-mount lenses wouldn’t have any reference to Leicinas?) Not that this would matter much as the originally C-mount (shipped with for example the Beaulieu 5008 S) lens wouldn’t be compatible with the Bolex H8 RX cameras either. Interestingly, the lens is compatible with the RX system. I’ve tested different focussing distances and haven’t encountered problems. That is, whoever (mechanically) changed the original non-RX-compatible lens to become compatible with the Bolex system did a good job. (Note that I still haven’t shot with the new lens. Will do it as soon as my new package of Foma R100 films arrive here.) I couldn’t find any info on whether anyone has modified these lenses to have the flange distance required by the RX cameras on any forum. Note: I’ve also tested the lens on my Beaulieu 5008 s, which also has a standad C-mount. As expected, a subject at 3m was the sharpest at inf (but not fully sharp!). And, of course, standard C-mount lenses like the Angenieux 6–80 mm f/1.2-1.4 (which originally came with my 5008s) are the sharpest at the closest distance (way below 1m?) because of the incompatibility. Here’s a photo album (shot with the Sigma DP2M for the best possible quality) with the lens (and three other 8mm zooms). The (again, RX-compatible) 6-66 is the one on the far left. To the right, the native Super8 6-80 follows; then, the single (native Regular 8 ) RX zoom (the 8-36) I had previously known of and, finally, the native Super8 8-64. The 6-80 and the 8-64 are standard C-mount ones (flange focus distance = 17.52mm). (Incidentally, I’ve shot a full series of test images with these two zooms with my Fuji X-E1 and Pentax Q7, see my previous postings on this.) I couldn’t discern any clear signs of a manual mod on the 6-66. By the way, with the non-Reflex Bolex H8 mod (D-mount), I now have four DS8 Bolex H8 mods. Here are some photos of these cameras. And my YouTube channel is full of (currently, Finland-only) shots with these cameras. A shameless plug - look for anything with the prefix “[D]S8” or “8mm scan” and any reference to the Bolex in either the title or the description.

I've, along with another Bolex H8 DS8 conversion, just received 12 boxes of 7.5m Fomachrom DS8 films manufactured in the former Czechoslovakia in 12/1993. They're based on the classic Agfa emulsion. (Which I BTW like very much as its colors don't fade over time, unlike those of, say, Agfa's new emulsions or, even more regretfully, non-Kodachrome Kodak emulsions.) Unfortunately, every single roll is completely useless as they're deeply molded (in their original canister too...). Nevertheless, I've scanned the boxes + the Czech-only manual + the bilingual (Czech + English) envelope. Here's the album: Incidentally, 51.50 German DM (their original price as can be seen on some of the boxes) in 1993 is about 39eur now so it wasn't particularly cheap back in the day even if you factor in the free development (the stamp needed to be provided by the client; it wasn't prepaid).

There's an interesting video at https://vimeo.com/296387376 The guy delevoped the film (Foma 100) himself as a negative, not as reversal. This explains the huge "ants" (definitely a HUUGE cons of the way of his development process). But, on the other hand, the video is VERY, beautifully sharp - I'd say much sharper than my own Foma 100 films, recorded with three different DS8 cameras and processed as reversal. Dunno if it's the negative (vs. reversal) process that has so much resolution advantage.

Of course the Canon isn't the best. But with black-and-white film only (where chromatic aberration isn't that big an issue), the advantages of the Bolex's otherwise superior optics may not be THAT apparent.

Finished shooting almost an entire roll of 10m Fomapan on the Bolex DS8 conversion. While I certainly still don't have the developed film these cameras produced (except for the Quartz, obviously) so I can't comment on whether the chromatic aberration or sharpness difference is visible on the Fomapan back-and-white ISO 100 film at all, I like, usability-wise, the Canon the best. It's just a "bigger brother" of the Quartz with a far more flexible lens and some other goodies (for example, variable shutter). The Quartz (apart from being much smaller & lighter & not handicapped by the restrictions of batteries) doesn't have advantages over the Canon, while both have the HUUGE advantage of below-the-reflex-mirror aperture and, compared to the Bolex, built-in light meter. (The Canon's viewfinder is as good as that of the Quartz and significantly better than those of the Pathe / Bolex). That is, if the developed film I shot on the Canon doesn't turn out to be worse than the footage I shot on the Pathe / Bolex, I may stick with the Canon for most of my future DS8 shooting. BTW, here are my latest four "8mm making of" 360-degree videos made yesterday: 1: the Leftish / Communist Parties' Labour Day Demo https://youtu.be/cpqGHjqksGM 2: Sirkat concert https://youtu.be/YDUNFWeERMI 3: firefighters in the Puistokatu playground https://youtu.be/NgWMZepz75U 4: events in the Church Park https://youtu.be/zr_pjdqOcQg (See the video descriptions for more info & possible links for additional pano stills. All videos are 360-degree.)

"You did use a tripod or a fixed mounting?" Tipod. I needed absolute flexibility to properly set focal lengths or distances from the subject (the resolution chart). "The usable field is a bit disappointing. Likely this very much dictated by the constraint of the small projection opening." Yup, outside the S8 frame area, particularly the 6-80 is disappointing. (The 8-64 is way better there.) But for strictly S8 shooting, both are great with different weaknesses and strengths. For Pentax Q / NX Mini / m43 / Fuji etc. users, even the cheap kit lens produces way better results.

I’ve compared the two lens to each other on my Pentax Q7 using a standard C-mount adapter. (This one: https://www.ebay.com/itm/C-mount-16mm-Cine-Film-Lens-to-Pentax-Q-P-Q-PQ-Camera-Mount-Adapter-Q7-Q10-Q-S1/181579402443 . Note that there is another adapter for the Pentax Q, which is about two millimeters shorter, which means it’s in no man’s land: it’s not long enough to be a proper C-mount adapter but not short enough to adapt CS-mount lens either. The latter would need 5mm distance. An example seller: https://www.ebay.com/itm/C-mount-Cine-Move-Lens-to-Pentax-Q-Mount-Adapter-For-PQ-Q10-Q7-Q-S1-Camera-C-PQ/263589562065?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649 . This also has a review “The adapter doesn't let the lens sit at the right distance”, which is perfectly true - others have also run into the same problem.) The following tests have been done: I’ve covered all the, on the lens, merked apertrue values at every tested focal length. There are nine of them on the 6-80 (1,4 / 2 / 2,8 / 4 / 5,6 / 8 / 11 / 16 / 22) and eight on the 8-64 (1,9 / 2,8 / 4 / 5,6 / 8 / 11 / 16 / 22) I’ve tested the extreme wide and tele ends of both lens; with the wider and longer 6-80, also trying to aproximate the wide and tele ends of the 8-64. (Unfortunately, these aproximations delivered somewhat worse-than-expected results.) This means I’ve tested the following extremes: a, 6mm (only available on the 6-80, obviously; there, the wide end), b, 8mm (the widest end of the 8-64), c, 64mm (the tele end of the 8-64), d, 80mm (only available on the 6-80, obviously; there, the tele end). I’ve also tested two intermediate focal lengths: the “normal” 15mm and the “short tele” 30mm. Obviously, these tests were done on both lenses. Note that, with some of the 6mm and 8mm tests, I’ve also tested the subject being far closer than the minimal focusing distance of the lenses (0.9m for the 8-64 and somewhat (about 5cm?) lower for the 6-80) as, on the wide(r) end, the large depth of field allows for shooting subjects not entirely in focus. I’ve uploaded all shots to https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@N07/albums/72157691200379483 . The individual shots have the following name convention: <test serial number> - <lens type> at <focal length>mm - <film plane (here, sensor) distance from subject, measured with a tape measure> - <aperture value * 10 with a 0 prefix when needed to avoid having to use non-integers messing up file sorting> That is, for example the photo at https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@N07/47744075651/in/album-72157691200379483/ has a name “014 - 8-64 at 8mm - 90cm - 040”, which means: 1, Test series 14 2, the tested lens is the 8-64 3, the focal length is 8mm 4, sensor distance from subject is 90cm 5, aperture was 040/10, that is, f4. The individual series have been as follows: Series 1-5: 6mm and 8mm tests with the subject being far closer than the minimal focusing distance of the lenses (see the note above). This was just an additional (nonstandard) test. Obviously, particularly with the aperture wide open, the softness caused by the lack of focus is certainly visible in the shots. I’ve also made “proper” wide-end tests with the sensor and subject distance being 90cm (the shortest distance the 8-64 can focus to); see below. With these tests, the printed test chart occupies just the Super8 frame (with the 8mm; in the 6mm tests, even less area). Series 6 and 7: 30mm (subject distance: 157cm) Series 8 and 9: 64mm (subject distance: 299cm) Series 10 and 11: 15mm (subject distance: 90cm) Series 12: 6mm (subject distance: 90cm) on the 6-80 Series 13 and 14: 8mm (subject distance: 90cm) Series 15: 80mm (subject distance: 438cm) on the 6-80 Note that the album has another photo at https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@N07/47746340931/in/album-72157691200379483/ , where I’ve shown the Super8 frame inside the 1/1.7” frame of the Pentax Q7 camera. General observations with regards to the difference between the lens: 1, At lower focal lengths, the 6-80 can let in up to two times more light than the 8-64 if you need. An example of both lenses’ aperture wide open AND at 8mm (the widest focal length for the 8-64 and still wide for the 6-80): 014 - 8-64 at 8mm - 90cm - 019: 1/100s, ISO125 013 - 6-80 at 8mm - 90cm - 014: 1/320s, ISO200; converted to ISO125: 1/320 / 1.6 = 1/200s; that is, exactly twice of the 8-64 value 2, At higher focal lengths or at smaller apertures, the 6-80 still delivers more light at exactly the same aperture setting than the 8-64. An example: at f8 and 64mm, the (compare the EXIF data of “008 - 6-80 at 64mm - 299cm - 080” and “009 - 8-64 at 64mm - 299cm - 080”) shutter speed of the 6-80 shot is 1/40, while that of the 8-64 is 1/25. That is, the larger lens let in 1.6 times more light even at f8. The advantage gradually diminishes with increasing aperture values; for example, at f16, the shutter times are 1/8 (smaller lens) and 1/10 (larger lens); that is, here, the 6-80 lets in 20% more light. And at f22 (which should otherwise NOT be used because of the diffraction!), there’s absolutely no difference any more. This also means that, at lower focal lengths and apertures wide open, the 6-80 has a tremendous advantage over the 8-64 with regards to image quality. In order to get the same amount of light projected to the film, for example at 8mm, the 6-80 can use f2.8, while the 8-64 still needs to use the widest setting, f1.9. The sharpness, CA etc. difference between the two lens is very large. Just compare the images “013 - 6-80 at 8mm - 90cm - 028” and “014 - 8-64 at 8mm - 90cm - 019”. (Incidentally, if you take a look at “014 - 8-64 at 8mm - 90cm - 028”, you’ll also notice it has been shot at 1/100s, while the 6-80 f2.8 image at 1/160s. That is, the 6-80 let in 1.6 times more light at f2.8 than the 8-64. And if you account for that and use around f3.5 on the 6-80, the image quality difference becomes even more pronounced - the 6-80 produces way better image.) All in all, if you don’t always need f1.4….f1.9 (which the 8-64 is obviously incapable of) but would often operate your lens under, say, f5.6, the 6-80 is a significantly better choice. The advantage diminishes at significanly higher aperture values, of course. 3, If you plan to use as much area as possible outside the Super8 frame (that is, you want to use the lens on your, say, Samsung NX Mini, Pentax Q, Fuji etc. (note that even the 6-80 is compatible with most non-Mini NX/Q adapters, it being pretty narrow at the end, let alone the 8-64!)), you will want to prefer the 8-64 for the following reasons: The chromatic abberation and the sharpness falloff outside the S8 frame is a serious issue on the 6-80. Practically, it’s only acceptable arounf f14…f16. The 8-64 is definitely better. at lower focal lengths, the 8-64 renders a far larger image circle than the 6-80. It’s only around 30mm that the latter lens starts to fill the entire 1/1.7” frame of the later Pentax Q cameras. Otherwise, the 6-80 is also a bit more contrasty. Finally, you want to avoid f16 and particularly f22 not only because of the diffraction, but also to minimize lens imperfections (dust etc.). An example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@N07/47694810482/in/album-72157691200379483/ . In this shot, I’ve annotated a dust particle with a green arrow. If you compare this shot to the other photos in the same series using wider apertures, you’ll see the particle is fully invisible up to around f8 and increasigly becomes an issue starting with f11.

She has arrived and seems to be perfectly OK. Have just started filming. BTW, I've already scanned the manuals I've got: https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@N07/albums/72157680121593278

Thanks for the link; I'll definitely send the camera for a service if it doesn't work flawlessly. (I've previously purchased a Canon 1014 XL-S from the same seller and it was, as described by the seller, flawless. So I have high hopes this time too.) First, to be on the safe side (to quickly find out whether there's something very serious with the camera like light leaking, bad registration etc.), I'll shoot a 10m Foma roll. Then, I'll switch to 30m rolls, particuarly for events like the oncoming Wife Carrying World Championship, which I plan to film not only with video (incl. 360-degree), but also with at least one DS8 camera. (BTW, here are my videos of the 2018 event if interested: 360-degree: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4_1cuziVtq__g7_3fiRPttWpKy5wdpjN; standard video: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4_1cuziVtq-KSJwFs0koU-le3I1qfI8H)

Some good news: I've just purchased a Bolex H8 conversion ( https://www.ebay.de/itm/183743960306 - it's based on the REX-3). I'll shoot a Foma100 test roll as soon as it arrives and compare it to all the other DS8 cameras I have.

1. I have never had cold-inducted mechanical problems with the Soviet cameras - DS-8 or the 2x8 Quarz. Unlike with my Canon DS8, in which my NiMH rechargeables quickly lost their charge and, after about 30 minutes of constantly being in about -3C degrees and in a very windy environment, it didn't operate any longer. 2. Fogging always happens with all kinds of cameras; therefore, I'm extremely precatious when bringing in my cold equipment into warm to avoid condensation & mold/fungus (the usual "several layers of plastic around the cameras and don't open for several hours").

You mean the large depth of field caused by the very small (1/2.6") frame size and the, because of the almost constant sunshine during the shooting, f/16...f/22 aperture almost constanly being in use? BTW, today, I also shot a bit around here in Finland. My two new "8mm making" 360-degree videos are at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cybZ3uWeeco and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upkz7qvVs3Q

Definitely. And I've already scanned two rolls of exactly the same setup (DS8-3 + Foma 100): https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4_1cuziVtq9ZU0gJfAVkC1fqOSggcM6N (note that the album also has some Foma 100 Std8 footage shot with the Leicina 8S).

You meany my "making of"-videos? They're 360-degree (full spherical) videos and can be freely scrolled around.

While I can't answer your questions, it's GREAT to see someone re-cutting Foma material into plain S8. Do you plan selling your stuff abroad (in the EU at least)? I'd more than keen to purchase it, as long as it's much cheaper than Kodak's stuff.