Raymond Zrike

These two videos amount to a decent explanation. The internet is filled with completely incorrect information regarding the “crop factor,” so it’s hard to find a good intro video to the topic. But he does a pretty good job.

I 100% see the market for this—would be the first customer for such a speed booster if it were to exist. Unfortunately it does not. Just look at how desired the Cooke 10-30mm T1.6 is. I believe it’s the fastest cine zoom in the world, and it’s only possible via adapting the back element of a 20-60mm T3.1. Using 35mm style lenses on super-16 isn’t the same thing. Most 35mm prime sets only go as wide as 18mm-ish, and often times those tend to be the least sharp of the bunch. Plus super-16 is way more demanding when it comes to lens resolution. Compare MTF charts for high quality full frame or S35 lenses versus m4/3 lenses. Even when restricting the image area to the center, the cheap m4/3 lenses are a lot sharper. At least how I understand it, a speed booster would help bridge this gap in resolving power. Imagine such an adapter on something like a Zeiss LWZ 15.5-45mm T2.6. It’d be perhaps a 7.5-22.5mm T1.3. I’d buy that in two seconds. I see it as much more of a value for zooms rather than primes. There are plenty of fast wide angle primes for super-16 out there. Optex, Elite, Century, Zeiss all have/had primes that are wider than 8mm at T1.8 or faster

Do they have a website? I can't find then online. I'd definitely would like to know about more camera repair shops in NYC!

Those Cinema Products lenses seem to be even rarer. Can't find anything about them online. Maybe I'm not using the right search terms? Also, I'd assume they only used the CP mount which wouldn't really be useful to me. Would love to see them in action though!

Thanks for all the perspectives on the Elites! Great info.

There’s very little info about these lenses online and zero test videos. They’re supposedly very similar to the Optar Illuminas optically, possibly even identical, even though they seem to be developed by two different companies? Certain places act like they’re interchangeable while some act like the Elites are much better or vice versa. The Elites Mk IV and III do seem to have better build quality, but that's not much of a concern to me. My main question: how sharp are these lenses closed down one stop versus the Zeiss Super Speeds? I'm interested in them as a super-16 prime set that is somewhere between the Super Speeds and the Ultra16 lenses in quality. Any serviceability concerns? I had an Optar Illumina 16mm serviced by AbelCine without a problem (although it was a bit expensive). I plan on asking Duclos on Monday. Would be very grateful to anybody who shares any work that they have shot with the Elite S16 lenses!

Sent you an email

Too be fair, I did just a few pages back haha. But I was more so asking if it was possible to make a 416-esque camera for the current market price of an SR3, so I don't know if you would consider that affordable.

The Contagion IMDb page says Super Speeds which I find believable. 48fps isn't really useful for slow motion, so the fast shutter angle and the higher frame right is most likely to sharpen up an action shot. Or lessen the motion blur because it fit the tone of the shot.

Definitely think there is demand for parts. I've seen so many people ask if anyone could covert their SR/SR2 to super-16, and it's basically impossible these days. Video taps can always be better too. I know Logmar doesn't really work with glass, but I think there's also a bunch of demand for some film-specific lens alterations. I would give $8k right now to convert a super-35 lens to super-16 with the speed boosted (a la the Cooke 20-60mm T3.1 turning into the 10-30mm T1.6). Speed boost from full frame to super-35 would be insane too (especially with the Alexa 35 coming out). But maybe that exact application is too niche. And I'm sure there's a reason Optex and Century went out of business.

That's overall some solid reasoning. Thanks for the response. Although I do think there was a lot of free marketing you left on the table, it's obviously almost impossible to accurately gauge interest levels of potential customers. Especially in this economy!

Are the later Arri/Aaton cameras infinitely serviceable? I'm honestly asking; I've never personally owned either, so I'm not familiar with their serviceability. Of course they're highly serviceable, but let's pretend people keep shooting film until the sun explodes. Will 416s that currently exist in 2022 be able to be repaired indefinitely? If so, then yeah I agree, there's not really any space in the market for a new competitor unless they can somehow come in at a lower price point and somehow stick around for servicing the cameras.

That's definitely the hurdle companies like Logmar are facing. It's similar to how difficult it is to get any sort of film stock production off the ground (without it just secretly being Kodak stock). But design work and R&D is basically always, in industries that aren't heavily subsidized, "done for free." That's the upfront investment of starting a business. Of course, though, I'm sure it's near impossible to find any investors to help out during that process for a start-up film gear company. Based on Logmar's wording, it does seem like R&D, at least for the Gentoo, was paid out of pocket. Though there are some examples of similar companies that somehow sustained themselves past that first wave of production. There's a digital rangefinder called the Pixii that came out a few years ago. Basically an M-mount camera, an alternative to a Leica for barely any less money and way worse picture quality. As soon as I heard about them, I thought they were completely doomed, but I guess that first production run was successful, and now they've come out with a version two that is supposedly of much higher quality. I think the key for them was making some choice decisions on what influential people to send pre-release units out to. I was seeing it all over Instagram. It's obviously a different target demo than Logmar (wealthy enthusiast versus pro), but I still think there are some lessons to be learned there.

That's great in concept, but all the best designs in the world mean nothing if they don't have a proper business plan that'll allow them to actually build the thing. I want these cameras to exist in the real world, not just vaporware, and so some constructive criticism is warranted when it doesn't happen. This camera was not marketed at all. I google "gentoo super 8" and Logmar's website comes up first, then this exact thread, and then Google gets confused and gives up. I am very confused why there was any expectation at all of there being fifty sales when seemingly no effort was put into letting people know the camera existed. As I said previously, their other cameras got coverage from a number of publications while there was nothing for this super-8 camera. A Kickstarter, a presence on the various Facebook groups, a post on Reddit, a cheap pretty short shot with their previous super-8 camera posted to YouTube... just some ideas off the top of my head. Would have easily met fifty real purchasers. To be blunt, the statement they posted reads like the sort of thing a group of engineers without much business savvy would put out -- and I say that out of love because half of my friends are engineers. "Two weeks after launching the camera we had fifty-one people providing their details and requesting sales contracts, so we were confident that Gentoo was a homerun but eventually out of those fifty-one people only twelve converted into actual sales" -- they were relying on a 100% success rate of converting customers' expressions of interest (requesting sales contracts) into actual sales. Instead, they needed more like 500 people to message them (which would be possible through better communication online) in order to lock down the required 50 sales. Again, I want new film cameras to exist! And for that exact reason, I think it's wise not to mince words. Make the super-16 camera, but tell everybody about it while you're doing it. You can't leave consumers in the dark and expect them to show up when you need them. And please correct me if I'm wrong on anything.

I think that's a bit of an overreaction lol. There's some justified criticism in this thread of Logmar's shoddy rollout of this camera and their (non)marketing. Their last few cameras had coverage from Nofilmschool, Wired, PremiumBeat, Newsshooter, ASC Mag, and yet almost nobody knew their newest camera was coming out before it was canceled! Definitely would be interested in a super-16 camera, though I think it would have to come in under the price of an SR3 to be of any value. Maybe the functionality of a 416 with an SR3 price? And obviously serviceability is an issue.

Emailed you about the lenses.

Thanks! Great explanation.

A number of the best super-16 zooms have a ramping maximum T-stop. For instance, the Angenieux 7-81mm is T2.4 until around 50mm when it becomes T3.4 (as marked on the lens itself). The Canon 6.6-66mm is similar. My question—if I were to shoot the Angenieux at T3.4 or slower, and I zoomed from 7mm to 81mm, would I see the exposure drop after 50mm? Or would it stay the same (i.e. the exposure drop would only occur if the lens is set to T3.3 or faster)? What is causing this drop in T-stop? Anecdotally, has anyone noticed a drop in exposure during a shot when zooming a lens like that? I assume a ramping maximum T-stop is not equivalent to a ramping f/stop? As in, I assume it only affects light transmission rather than depth of field.

Still available? Interested—will DM you.

Not really sure what the problem here is? Just let the buyer return the product to you for a refund. It's unfortunate when you have to eat the shipping costs as a seller, but it it doesn't happen often, especially if you cover all your ground regarding the condition in the listing. I've sold tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment and other items on eBay in the last few years and have had very few issues. The only annoying bit is the big fee, but that's the tradeoff for all the traffic they generate for your item (I've listed quite a few things on this forum and elsewhere online that got no traction but then sold quickly once I listed it on eBay).

I’ve only seen the Optex and Century lenses go for $5k+ while the Digiprimes regularly sell for less than $1k, so that’s mainly why I was hunting for it. It would obviously be more expensive than the other Digiprimes, but I’d expect someone who understands the market to put it up for around $2k. The HDx1.4 and Abakus adapters don’t really add CA or softness if their own; they obviously enhance the CA already present from the lenses, but it’s not much of an issue given the Digiprimes are already so heavily corrected. I have the HDx1.4 (it actually extends the focal length 1.35x according to the spec sheet) already and I’ve got the Abakus coming in in a few days, so I should be able to do some further tests.

Great find! Crossing my fingers it’ll end up on eBay or this forum. I can never seem to be able to find these auctions until after the fact.

I’ve seen the 3.9mm in the brochures and mentioned in various forum threads, but I can’t find any sort of trace of it having been sold anywhere. Has anyone seen it in the flesh? I would love to get my hands on one—would be pretty neat for super-16 with an Abakus adapter.

If you're wanting one single lens to start off at $1k, I'd wait around for a good deal on a 16mm Super Speed MkI (which most consider normal on super-16). Then you can pick up the 12mm and 25mm at some point. I don't really recommend the 9.5mm though. It's pretty soft until f/2.8.

It's kinda hard to give recommendations without being given a budget. Have all the money in the world? Get the Zeiss Ultra16s or Cooke sk4s. Have a mid-budget? Get Zeiss Super Speeds or Optar Illuminas. Have no money? Adapt still lenses to c-mount (although unfortunately you'll be stuck to mostly long lenses). As for zooms, if they actually cover super-16 (a lot of the eBay listings lie about that), they usually hover around $3k-6k (your Canon 8-64mm, Zeiss 11-110mm, etc). You could alternatively get a full frame zoom, but the only one that goes down to a normal focal length on super 16 that is not wildly expensive is the Tokina 11-20mm T2.9. That is also an incredibly shoot zoom range. The Sigma 18-35mm T2 isn't a bad choice, but at $4k, you might as well get a legit super-16 zoom. As someone who isn't loaded, I've got the following for my ACL (which has a similar mount to your NPR): 16mm Optar Illumina PL, Zeiss 25mm Super Speed MK2 PL, Zeiss 55mm Otus F-mount, and a Zeiss Digizoom 6-24mm B4 with an IBE adapter. The key is regularly checking for good listings on eBay and on this forum. Do you mean visualizing what different focal lengths look like on super-16? There are a couple good director's viewfinder apps. I quite like Artemis Pro.