Kern Switar lenses for 8mm film with C-mount

propellor · Joined: 29 Apr 2010 Posts: 205 Location: Amsterdam

I recently fell in love with 50's Bolex and Beaulieu film camera's and bought a couple. On one there are 3 beautiful Kern Switar lenses for 8mm film with a C-mount. I would love to try those on a digital camera. What would be the most usable camera, meaning the least vignetting. So probably the smallest sensor with interchangeable lenses.

Any ideas?

kds315* · Expire: 2021-03-09

Hi propellor,

I split your post and made it a sep. topic, as it had nothing to do with d-mount lenses.

Kern c-mounts may be used on Lumix mft cameras for instance with cheap c-mount adapters. You'll notice soon that only from about 25mm focal length onwards you'll have teh full frame covered. Below that there is quite some vignetting. These Kern lenses in c-mount were for 16mm Bolex camera. 8mm were d-mount, but some camera also allowed c-mount lenses to be used (this way it works, not the other way around using 8mm d-mount lenses on 16mm c-mount cameras).

paulhofseth · Expire: 2018-06-28

and there is some doubt about 16mm RX (prism reflex) lenses being suitable for cameraswithouth this much glasss in the light path. (they were recomputed for the Bolex RX bodies).

I only have 8mm non Rx and Rx for th H8, so I do not qualify to comment on the 16mm s. But in general, do not hesistate to use cmounts on MFT. some,I have used , like the longer Scneiders and the Kinoptics are excellent.

kds315* · Expire: 2021-03-09

There is a paper about that "RX" here, sounds very reasonable:
http://www.city-net.com/~fodder/bolex/truth.html

propellor · Joined: 29 Apr 2010 Posts: 205 Location: Amsterdam

Thanks guys.
For the record; I have C-mount RX lenses for 8mm ! The REX series from 8mm Bolex switched to C-mount instead of D-Mount..

So in theory I could use a 8mm film lens longer than 25mm on a Lumix MFT camera? Is that correct?

kds315* · Expire: 2021-03-09

We're surely looking forward to seeing your results! Wink

ekoe · Joined: 28 Jul 2011 Posts: 47

Depends on what 8mm you're talking about. Most Regular 8mm (same as Standard 8mm or Normal 8mm) interchangeable lenses were d-mount, but the Bolex H8 REX used c-mount calibrated for the Regular 8mm flange depth of 15.305mm (which similar to d-mount flange distance, but is adjusted by roughly .5mm to take into account the refraction caused by the reflex prism). Those lenses would be marked "H8 RX". I don't know if they would provide similar coverage as c-mounts designed for 16mm, but you'll have issues due to the different flange focal distance.

So, you probably won't be able to use your H8 RX lenses on m4/3 because of the short ffd of d-mount, even if you have the adapter fabricated the lens will be mounted far enough within the m4/3 lens mount as to make the focus or aperture ring difficult to access. You could look into the Nikon J1 or V1, but I think it has approx. 17mm flange distance and apparently the light metering does not work with adapted lenses, although a firmware update might change this.

There were likely other Regular 8mm cameras manufactured with c-mount that I'm not aware of, that take 16mm c-mount lenses. Afterall, Regular 8mm was just 16mm film exposed quarter-frame, flipped after first exposure, exposed again, and then cut down the middle.

However, some Super8mm cameras such as Beaulieu 2008, 3008, 4008 and 5008 series had c-mount, with the proper c-mount ffd just like 16mm. So, you can use 16mm c-mount lenses on many Beaulieu Super 8mm cameras. Most of the c-mount lenses intended for Super 8mm vignette heavily on m4/3, particularly the zooms, but there may be longer Super 8mm lenses out there provide decent coverage. For the most part, unless you're planning to use crop mode on the GH2, Super 8mm lenses are not particularly viable on m4/3 unless you're okay with lots of vignetting.

I think the general rule of thumb for d-mount lenses is that most wider than 38mm will vignette. Perhaps that applies to Super 8mm c-mount as well. That is just a 'general rule of thumb'.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is that you can't really operate on 'theory'. In the process of formulating theories and rules of thumb regarding c-mount, we also generate c-mount myths such as 'any c-mount lens of 25mm and wider will vignette'.

Maybe a Pentax Q?

danfromm · Joined: 04 Sep 2011 Posts: 576

Ed, I have a 36/1.4 MacroSwitar in H8RX mount that I've used as a macro lens on my S8 Beaulieus. After Bernie O'Hanlon carefully trimmed the mount to let it go as deep into my cameras as possible without fouling the reciprocating mirror, far focus distance was around 1 m. Fine lens, very useful for macro work. Of course, it had to be focused TTL, the lens' distance scale was way way off.

I've stopped shooting S8 and the lens needs service, the diaphragm leaves have to be reseated. Since I can't use it, I feel no urgency about having it fixed.

All in all, H8RX lenses belong on H8 reflexes.

ekoe · Joined: 28 Jul 2011 Posts: 47

Hey Dan!
That's interesting and it brings up a good point... d-mount (or H8 RX c-mount) lenses may work on m4/3 for macro use.
If you got max 1m focus from the H8 RX on your Beaulieu, I imagine max focus on m4/3 would be about 1'.
But you can always achieve this with your c-mount lens and a c-mount extension ring.
I do love Beaulieu, and although I don't shoot as much Super 8mm since getting my m4/3, I still run it and keep the batteries
trained.
I just remembered some S8 footage I shot with my Beaulieu from Xmas 2yrs ago that I think I'll bring out to show my
daughter! Ah yes, the days when we used to project and view the camera original... Nothing else like it!

Do you mean Bernie O'Doherty, by any chance?

danfromm · Joined: 04 Sep 2011 Posts: 576

Ed, thanks for the correction.

Bernie O'Doherty in Atlanta was the one who did it. More evidence that my memory is failing. Either that or I conflated him with Redmond O'Hanlon, and that's a considerable stretch to find a weak excuse.

Understand, before Bernie trimmed the lens' mount to let it go deeper into the camera far focusing distance was around 30 cm.

I'm of two minds about Beaulieus. They reek of quality and can do things that no fixed lens S8 camera can do and offer better control of exposure than most. My Stalinist little Canon 310XL is at the other extreme. That said, they seem to be very fragile and hard to make right. After I spent too much money having Bernie fail to fix my 5008S-MS, I had a friend in Paris give it to Beaulieu for service. They made it right, remarked that no one in North America was up to fixing their old 'uns. When I bought a 4008-ZM2 to use a 7.5-75 Fujinon ex-ZC1000 the ZM-2 went straight to Paris for overhaul.

I was hooked on Beaulieus by a really cranky 4008ZM with the 8-64/1.9 Angenieux, traded it and some cash for the 5008 in order to be able to use short-dated sound S8 K40, which was then very cheap. Reputation notwithstanding, the Angenieux didn't produce better footage than the 7.5-60/1.4 on my Canon 814LS (remember it? It was the 814 modified for B&H double system sound. I still have it, an Ikelite housing for it, and the B&H recorder and cabling).

But, y'know, within its limitations the 310XL, with its dinky but fast 8.5-25.5/1.0 zoom, 18 fps, guess focus, and no control at all over exposure (and no report from the camera on what it was doing) took better footage than my Beaulieus with their 6-70/1.4 and 6-66/1.8 Schneider zooms. The 310XL is hard to use but in the days of K40 it was very useful.

ekoe · Joined: 28 Jul 2011 Posts: 47

Yeah, Beaulieu's can be terribly particular. I think it's safe to assume that any used Beaulieu you purchase will need a service, unless it has just been serviced. To complicate the issue, very few individuals are adept at servicing them. Do you mind if I ask you the contact info for the Paris Beaulieu service to whom you refer? My 4008zm4 is working fine at the moment, but it would be good to know for future reference. I purchased my 4008 from a retired Beaulieu technician in France, and in the past I was able to return it to him for service. Bjorn Andersson comes very highly recommended for Beaulieu repair. I haven't used him, but his contact is info@beaulieu-service.com. Apparently, he's got all the remaining Beaulieu replacement parts/spares.

Like you, I've had numerous super8 cameras, and have found that some of the most basic/cheapest cameras also make beautiful images. I know the 310XL and respect it's lowlight capabilities. One of my favorite S8's is the Sankyo EM-40XL. It's probably got a few more features than the 310XL, like intervalometer, manual exposure and 24 and 36fps, but it is almost entirely plastic and consequently very lightweight. It feels cheap but produces wonderful images. So I can't disagree with you.

But I still prefer a Beaulieu 4008zm to any other super 8 camera. I've had a few 1014xl-s(s) and they are nice, but when they develop a fault, every serviceperson I have used has been unable to repair the fault without causing another more serious fault. I probably dumped a few thousand dollars into the Canon 1014xl-s model before I moved back to Beaulieu 4008zm. I'm familiar with the 814electronic, the 814xl, the 814xl-s but I've actually never heard of the 814LS and I consider myself quite knowledgeable about S8. Then again, I picked up Super 8 in the late 90's after shooting 16mm and Super16 in film school. I have a Uher deck (*correction: it's actually an Erlson) and cabling for my Beaulieu that takes perforated mag stock, and synchs with the camera via the mechanical Erlson pilot-tone synchro-port. The deck synch with a projector or transfer unit via the perfs. I've never used the deck, however. It's really just a novelty nowadays.

So tell me Dan, fellow brother of the small gauge... one thing that has been stirring in my gourd is the way small sensors are criticised off hand for too much depth of field, yet I was certainly able to achieve a very shallow depth of field on the tiny Super 8mm frame with fast lenses. At times, I find the DOF provided from a c-mount lens at f/1.4 on my m4/3 to be a bit too shallow. So, I think one could achieve quite shallow DOF on something like the Nikon V1 with our fast Super 8mm lenses. So I think small sensors are sometimes unfairly condemned. Granted, much criticism is warranted given the current line-up of the Nikon 1 and the Pentax Q and their slow kit lenses. What do you think?

danfromm · Joined: 04 Sep 2011 Posts: 576

ekoe · Joined: 28 Jul 2011 Posts: 47

Dan, man, that sounds awesome.
I know we're totally off-topic, but I just wanted to clarify on one thing you mentioned about Super 8mm and VHS. I agree with you on everything else. What I wanted to say is that Super 8mm is reported as capable of 900 lines of horizontal resolution, compared to that of Standard Definition DV which has only 480 horizontal lines of resolution. That is resolution. The grain detail contained in Super 8 is another consideration entirely, if one is inclined to regard grain as 'detail' or 'information'. There is resolution rendered within a single grain... it's not one grain black, one grain white, etc.
I've done a lot of transferring of film to video. It started to pay my way through film school, but later I built my own film chain transfer systems to Sony DVCAM, Hi-8, BetaSP and was able to achieve excellent results such that the normal observer could not tell the footage was not professionally telecined. But it was always apparent to me that resolution was definitely lost, the sensors could not handle the highlight/contrast let alone the color space. Again, grain is an entirely separate aesthetic issue that far transcends SD video, especially VHS or even S-VHS.

danfromm · Joined: 04 Sep 2011 Posts: 576

Ed, I think we're in agreement. Original S8, if shot with care, can look better than original VHS. I think there's no comparing original 16 with VHS.

When I started the options were 8/8, S8, 16 or VHS with a two piece camera/recorder setup. I went S8 because of quality, weight, low cost of editing, and availability of decent used gear at very low prices. My first film, a 66 minute epic on collecting fish in Costa Rica took four years (= four field trips) to shoot, cost (outlays on cameras, Ikelite housing, ball leveler, fluid head, film, processing, editor [Minette S8], splicer [Fuji], projector [Elmo ST1200], less income from resale of cameras) around $1100. That would have bought an OK new VHS rig ... I had a lot of fun doing it.

For me, the economics of S8 were just great until I went crazy for Beaulieus.

I educated myself about gear using Lenny Lipton's Super 8 Book, a bundle of Super 8 Filmmaker that I bought, and back issues on Modern Photography and Popular Photography that our library had. I educated myself about cinematography by reading David Cheshire's The Book of Movie Photography, thinking hard, and paying attention to TV shows and movies. The ideas Cheshire presented helped me understand what I was seeing from "Hollywood."

My wife has been after me for a while to get a decent digicam. When I'll do, I'll get one what will shoot HD video and we'll see what new trouble I can get into. Probably more travel films.

Thread drift is a fact of life. Live with it.

Cheers,

Dan

ekoe · Joined: 28 Jul 2011 Posts: 47

Yeah, but you know you and I could hi-jack this thread beyond all recognition. It's always good chatting with you, Dan. You should check in on the Super 8 forums: http://www.filmshooting.com/scripts/forum/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=6403a36f393b6457ff7ba4141e7f0180
and
http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?s=1c68c641b26181a505523835a3b6cdc2&showforum=31

I still have those Lipton books. We didn't have Super 8mm at film school, and it wasn't regarded very highly... but I turned to it as a film alternative to that first wave of miniDV camcorders like the PD150 and the XL1. Remember in the late 90's when everyone was trying to make miniDV look like film? That was the time I spent making Super 8mm look like 16mm. And, yes... very good Super 8mm can look better than really bad 16mm. That same care and attention to the Super 8mm frame continues today, you can witness that progress in the posts of the forums I linked above.

What I have at the moment is a Panasonic GF1. You might want to check it out if you're looking for a video camera. It's a stills camera that shoots video, and there's firmware hacks available to enhance video performance. The GH2 is even more capable. You can use almost all your old c-mount lenses on them. I love mine. PM me if interested.

ekoe · Joined: 28 Jul 2011 Posts: 47

In pure coincidence... a good friend and academy award winning director of photography visited last night. He brought me his Beaulieu to service. A very nice but quite dusty post-1975 4008zmII with Schneider-Kreuznach 6-66/1.8. The original batteries need a refurb but it's running and metering fine.
You remember the sound of a Beaulieu running at about 70fps?