Raymond Zrike

25 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

I bet there'd be a market for it if one could be made and sold for $500, but I dont believe thats remotely possible.

I believe there would be a market up to $3k, but I don’t know if it is possible to manufacture such an object. Really, I was thinking the achievable objective is permanently (or maybe semi-permanently) converting the back element of a S35 lens to S16. You could convert a modern cheap zoom like the cine Sigma 17-35 T2 to something that is impossible otherwise (9-18mm T1), for instance. As I said, there’s plenty of S16 primes available at all speeds, so I was thinking of converting primes. Elite has a 35mm T1.3 btw.

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 

2 hours ago, David Dominguez said:

Cinerepair in Queens NYC will

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!

14 hours ago, Robert Hart said:

CP Ultra T* lenses which are T1.3 lenses, 9mm, 12.5mm, 16mm, 25mm perform well and have slightly more apparent sharpness at the wide apertures.

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

5 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

but nobody has been discussing an affordable 416

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.

20 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Logmar could make accessories for other cameras that exist already and be very profitable since they're clearly very skilled and capable of building 3D printed and metal parts. 

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.

8 minutes ago, Tommy Lau Madsen said:

Should or Could we have done it differently? Absolutely!, but without the benefit of hindsight I don't see how we could have known that 3/4 wouldn't sign up after initially coming forward.

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!

16 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

So how do you make a successful "ALL NEW" camera? Yea don't.

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.

16 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

The issue with real film based gear nowadays is pretty much just that... You can collect enough resources to actually manufacture the final products but the design work and rd has to be always done for free. 

Which essentially makes the companies kind of charity operations instead of "real businesses". They just want to help the community the best they can but it makes it really hard if even the materials and outsourced assembling cannot be reliably compensated for.

I think the customer base fails to see the situation and thus makes it pretty impossible to launch anything new for film originating workflows even when there is lots of empty talk that something "would sell a fortune if it just were available"

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.

2 hours ago, Nicholas Kovats said:

No. There are jealous individuals in this thread who lie and amplify their self-worth with the recurrent theme "If I only I had been consulted first." Perpetual and delusional hubris is toxic and does not build community.  The endgame is to encourage and invest in the development of new analog film cameras. The brave few who may inspire others to innovate, design and produce subsequent film cameras and associated accessories. It takes guts and perseverance not whining. 

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. 

23 hours ago, Nicholas Kovats said:

I would advise the select few who are spreading misinformation and claiming falsely to have a direct connection to Logmar to cease and desist.   

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.

On 5/11/2022 at 7:31 AM, Ville Piippo said:

Canon S16mm T2.4 8-64mm zoom lens with PL mount

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.

3 hours ago, Mikey Collins said:

what lens could you not do without?

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.