Useful to shoot some slide film – BEOON+M10

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not quite Mitch, I have the Summilux 50 f/1.4 ASPH that works well with the BEOON, but as far as enlarger lenses are concerned I've learnt that it's a bit hit and miss whether a suitable copy of a particular lens can be acquired. Having failed with the Nikkor 50 f/2.8 and having read favourable reports on the Schneider Componon-S 50 f/2.8 I purchased a copy but found this too failed. I had considered the Focotar 2 50, but having read JMF's account it leads me conclude that not all enlarger lenses are created equal. Some will work, some will not.

 

Steve, 

 

Given that my Componon-S50 seems to work perfectly (at least with the loupe) at various magnifications but the Rolleinar 50 would not focus at all, it must point to huge focal length variations in these lenses. In that both Franke & Heidecke and Schneider Kreuznach were/are very professional companies, this is a surprise. 

 

Wilson

[Steve Ricoh]

Steve, 

 

Given that my Componon-S50 seems to work perfectly (at least with the loupe) at various magnifications but the Rolleinar 50 would not focus at all, it must point to huge focal length variations in these lenses. In that both Franke & Heidecke and Schneider Kreuznach were/are very professional companies, this is a surprise. 

 

Wilson

Wilson,

I was suprised too expecting close tolerance between lenses of the same design off the same production line, albeit separated potentially by a few years between manufacture. Perhaps the reason is design based, in that the repeatability of focal length is unimportant from a tolerance perspective given the lens was designed for an enlarger with a mechanism for focusing. What is acceptable for use on an enlarger maybe completely unacceptable for the BEOON. But the likes of Schneider et al probably had no idea that their lenses would be used in such a manner many years down the line.

I have compared the dimensions of my BEOON and Componon-S with another member (Reeray, I believe) and they are as close as it is possible to measure (within 0.1mm) without a 3-axis measurement facility. I can only conclude that the exact nodal point is not a critical dimension for the design and manufacture of an enlarger lens. As I interpret things, there is no other explanation why one user will have acceptable results whilst another will not when using the exact same set up: camera, BEOON and specific enlarger lens bearing the same identification, eg the Schneider Componon-S 50mm f/2.8.

Steve

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Reeray]

Just out of interest, and in reference to manufacture dates and possible variations, what is the serial number of your Componon S?

 

Mine, which works perfectly, is 14 324 050. Note the gaps: I wonder if the last three relate to the focal length.

[Doug A]

Variability of the nodal point distance from the flange, relative to the designed value, will be too small to measure with modern lenses like these. A more likely explanation for the differences people here are reporting is that there have been several significantly different versions of the 50/2.8 Componon S. Two of them are shown here. And I have seen two different versions of the one on the left - one with a lever and one without. I believe there was an earlier chrome body version too. There is no reason to think that the nodal point distance of all these different versions is the same. Is everyone here using the same lens?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited November 9, 2017 by Doug A

[Reeray]

Mine is similar to the one on the left but no green band and I also have a large lever for selecting aperture being on the right side of yours

Edited November 9, 2017 by Reeray

[Steve Ricoh]

Mine is like the one on the left. It has the green band and a large lever for aperture selection. Serial number is 14746592.

[Steve Ricoh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For 1:1 reproduction the BEOON instructions state tubes A+D should be used with a 50mm camera lens.

 

Based on user experimentation, here and elsewhere (not my own, I add), it has been established that tubes B+C+D work best with a 50mm enlarger lens.

 

That's a big difference, ie A+D cf B+C+D, however the camera lens is set at infinity for 1:1 reproduction. How does this compare with an enlarger lens?

[Guest Nowhereman]

The beauty of colour reversal originals is what seemed to disappear on my Plustek scans, which looked anaemic and dull, with blocky blacks and blown highlights, not present on the original. The Epson V700 was considerably better for keeping the feel of the original but too soft to print to any decent size. Even A4 was a push. I am hoping for great things with the BEOON and SL. 

Wilson

 

Wilson - I've lost track — and wondering how you eventually came out on the BEEON/SL vs Plustek or Epson V700? What are you doing now in terms of scanning or digitalizing? 

 

I haven't shot film some six months, but have done so recently and am as happy as ever with the BEEON/Focotar 2-50mm/M10 setup. Interestingly, after shooting the same landscape on Portra 400 and the M10, my results on film were substantially better as you can see in the thread, Film vs Digital: Look to Cinematography for Clues, where someone made the comment that the greens of the M10, in particular, "are flat and dull relative to other cameras." Something worth looking into for M10 shooters...

Edited January 26, 2018 by Nowhereman

[wlaidlaw]

Wilson - I've lost track — and wondering how you eventually came out on the BEEON/SL vs Plustek or Epson V700? What are you doing now in terms of scanning or digitalizing? 

 

I haven't shot film some six months, but have done so recently and am as happy as ever with the BEEON/Focotar 2-50mm/M10 setup. Interestingly, after shooting the same landscape on Portra 400 and the M10, my results on film were substantially better as you can see in the thread, Film vs Digital: Look to Cinematography for Clues, where someone made the comment that the greens of the M10, in particular, "are flat and dull relative to other cameras." Something worth looking into for M10 shooters...

I never got round to using the SL what with the hassle of buying a new car and various family issues. Hopefully when I get back from the Caribbean and New Orleans with lots of slide film, in two weeks or so, I will get round to using the all set up BEOON to scan some film.

 

Wilson

[Guest Nowhereman]

I should add that the images that I posted in this thread were all digitalized with the M10 shutter speed dial set to aperture priority mode, the "A" setting. This means the exposure measuring method was what the M10 manual calls "strongly center-weighted metering". As the manual states, "This method takes account of the entire image field, although the parts of the subject situated in the center have more influence on the exposure value calculation than the areas at the margins."

 

Since then, I use Multi-field metering by turning on Live View and selecting Multi-field metering from the Exp. Metering menu. This places the histogram more consistently in the center, results in a somewhat lower contrast digitalized image and rarely blows any highlights. If there are any blown highlights, you can dial in some negative exposure compensation. Also, I now set the aperture of the Focotar-50 II to f/5.6.

[helged]

Interesting thread! Any form of conclusion whether conventional scan (eg with Nikon Coolscan 90000) or camera-reproduction (from a state-of-the-art FF sensor) is prefered/comparable for 35mm positive (slide) film?

Edited April 20, 2018 by helged

[Guest JMF]

Interesting thread! Any form of conclusion whether conventional scan (eg with Nikon Coolscan 90000) or camera-reproduction (from a state-of-the-art FF sensor) is prefered/comparable for 35mm positive (slide) film?

 

 

Hi,

since my Nikon Coolscan V "died", I have been using my SL to scan slide film - when not using the  only remaining  local  lab -  using either a Focotar 50 or a 60 macro Elmarit R with success.

 

Here is an example of Provia 100 ( shot with a Minilux through a plane window ) scanned :

 

Mexico City by JM__, on Flickr

 

This is not a straight out of scan result. Been scanning 6x6 slides too. I also did my share of DIY adjustments to make the Beeon stand more stable and faster to work with.

 

My 2 cents, JM.

Edited April 20, 2018 by JMF

[Guest Nowhereman]

Interesting thread! Any form of conclusion whether conventional scan (eg with Nikon Coolscan 90000) or camera-reproduction (from a state-of-the-art FF sensor) is prefered/comparable for 35mm positive (slide) film?

 

Earlier in this thread, I've written several statements that digitalizing with my BEOON/Focotar-2 50mm lens/M10 is close in quality to the results I had with the Imacon Precision III scanner, which has a true optical resolution of 6,300 dpi and a dMax of 4.2. It's also much faster: 5 seconds per digitalization vs 12-15 minutes per scan with the Imacon Precision III at full 6,300 dpi resolution. Also, I found that digitalizing slide film I needed substantiality less color correction than scanning with the Imacon.

 

There is also another issue that I had with my Imacon. Two years ago, when I tried using my Imacon again, I found that the scans were losing sharpness at the trailing of the 35mm frame (as the negative is fed in portrait orientation). After many hours of searching on the web, I found out that the cause is slippage of the belts that drive the feed of the holder mechanism. I would have had to replace the belts. Although I could buy the belts in the US or the UK at US$5 each, I give up because these scanners usually require belt replacement every six months or so. The belt problem also makes the film frame shift in the holder as it goes into the scanner in a way that cuts off small, triagulalr portion. I then remembered from ten years ago that I often had this problem, but didn't know there was a solution.

 

As I didn't want to make the care and feeding of this Imacon scanner into a profession, I gave up on it. I should add that the problem may be aggravated by a hot and humid climate, which is the condition under which I used the Imacon, first in Washington, DC (hot and humid in June-August) and then in Bangkok.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Nowhereman Instagram

[Steve Ricoh]

Hi,

since my Nikon Coolscan V "died", I have been using my SL to scan slide film - when not using the  only remaining  local  lab -  using either a Focotar 50 or a 60 macro Elmarit R with success.

 

...I also did my share of DIY adjustments to make the Beeon stand more stable and faster to work with.

 

My 2 cents, JM.

JM, I would be interested to know how you've modified the BEOON for stability and for speed of work, if you don't mind sharing this info.

Cheers!

[Guest JMF]

JM, I would be interested to know how you've modified the BEOON for stability and for speed of work, if you don't mind sharing this info.

Cheers!

 

 

I use a Beseler Megatrans negative carrier and have the Beoon standing on top . One needs to adjust the stand's height and M39 extension rings to the extra distance from the negative, matching the taking lens' field of view.

Using a third party M to L adapter fitted with an helicoid does help fine tuning the process.

 

I believed I shared some photos of the set up in an other thread about the Beoon here on LUF. Cannot recall where exactly.

 

Cheers, JM

Edited April 20, 2018 by JMF

[Steve Ricoh]

Thanks J-M, I'll take a look through the other Beoon threads.

[wlaidlaw]

One problem I find with the BEOON is if I tighten the focus locking knob, the focus changes slightly and also the angle of the camera to the imaged film. Now if I stop down on my Schneider Kreuznach 50mm/f2.8 lens to its optimum sharpness which is f5.6 this may make no difference but I would have hoped that the fit of the inner to outer tubes on the focus column would have been more precise. I know Reid and Sigrist, when they converted Leica's drawings of the IIIb for their model III from metric to imperial, were not impressed by Leica's machining tolerances and tightened them considerably for their camera. 

 

Wilson

[Guest Nowhereman]

Wilson - Interesting. I tested this issue of tightening the focus locking knob last night and, looking through the M10 with an EVF, I did not see any change in focus, either with the plain magnified view or with focus peaking. I did see a slight lateral movement in the imaged film, but it may be so small as not to be significant.

 

However, I have found another issue. Last year I started using the BEOON with an M9 — and the framing in the digitalized image was perfect. Subsequently, when I used the M-Monchrome, I found that the digitalized image was somewhat skewed, so that there was a small black triangle at the bottom left of the digitalized frame. I thought that the sensor of the MM was slightly misaligned, and asked Wetzlar to check this when the MM went in for a sensor replacement: the found that the sensor was well aligned.

 

When I tried using a second BEOON, I found that my M10 — I don't have the M9 and MM anymore — produced a skewed digitalized image on the second BEOON. I was able to straighten the digitalized image after loosening the 3 aligning screws on the side of the mounting ring, as described in the BEOON manual, on the page dealing with aligning screw mount Leicas. 

 

Anyone acquiring a BEOON should check this alignment. Loosening the aligning screws needs to be done carefully, so as not to unscrew any of the screws so it comes out: they are very small and difficult to find if they land on the floor or a carpet — I speak from experience!

[wlaidlaw]

I had to re-align mine but I am used to doing this as an LTM Visoflex II owner and user, where I usually have to re-align slightly for each different camera. I would emphasise like the Visoflex, it is essential to use a really high quality 2mm jeweller's screwdriver to loosen these screws, which will fit really well into the slot. They are quite soft plated metal screws, easily damaged and/or burred and often from years of non-use, very tight. If they seem very stuck, warming the whole rotating adapter ring with a hair dryer, may help. I use Swiss A+F screwdrivers but Horotec or Bergeon are equally good. I don't think any other makes come close. I use these screwdrivers when I am restoring barographs and other similar scientific instruments (currently doing a 1943 Schick US Naval Stadimeter). 

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest Nowhereman]

Thanks for the warning on screwdrivers. I as using Stanley screwdrivers and worried abut ruining the screw heads.