Stuart Richardson Posted August 25, 2019 Share #21 Posted August 25, 2019 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) If you are willing to go very basic, and are mostly interested in using the lenses, this should be possible. The most difficult part is the receiving mount. If you take an S adapter L, and a L adapter M and stack them, you have an M mount, which has a lot of adapters. You can then mount this on view camera with a bag bellows, pair it with a film back (probably a Hasslelblad A16), and you have a camera. If you can get someone to make or convert a lensboard to S lens mount, for example a Sinar lens board, then you have more flexibility. This might also work with a tech cam, though I am not sure if there are any that can use an M mount lens. One of a number of downsides to this is that you need an S body to set the aperture, which will remain fixed until you change it on an S camera. For me, however, this would kind of ruin the fun. What I think would be nicest is if we could just use the existing S body (more or less) with roll film. I think hacking a film back onto it would be extremely difficult, as all the control interface is done via the rear screen, which would presumably have to be removed to do a film version. Perhaps another option would be to make an S to R adapter and use the S lenses on the R9. That would be closest to capturing the feel of the S in a film body. But then you are stuck with 35mm, and you might as well just use the R lenses. The problem is that the flange distance is 53mm, which is shorter than all the medium format cameras. Given that, you are probably stuck with 35mm, view/tech cam solutions, or hacks that require heavy modification. Edited August 25, 2019 by Stuart Richardson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 25, 2019 Posted August 25, 2019 Hi Stuart Richardson, Take a look here (idea): film-body for S lenses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
TomLiles Posted August 26, 2019 Share #22 Posted August 26, 2019 (edited) Dunno if this has disappeared from the horizon of S-system stroke Sinar-S-system crossover products, but I certainly remember it:http://sinarphotographyag.cmail19.com/t/ViewEmail/r/49F317200393BBFB2540EF23F30FEDED/ Presumably, you could just switch the Sinar 30/45 back for some kind of roll film (120) holder (horseman, etc)... Or maybe it isn't as simple as that (only the digital Sinar back would communicate with the lens via the adapter mount). No snark intended at all, but I'll join the guys wondering why we want to try this in the first instance. Tons of excellent film camera solutions -- designed for purpose, high quality and no stress solutions -- out there at fire-sale prices---right now, today. I doubt, with rude confidence, that S-lenses will be (perform like) S-lenses on anything but an S-body. Just from first principles, that should make sense. The more you know about the provenance and design goals of the S-system, the case for high skepticism only gets stronger. Enthusiasm is awesome, and I am an enthusiast myself before anything else (very necessary when trying to make a living at this)... but I would offer a friendly caution against this fashion/religious belief that lenses will work great on things the optical designers never designed or intended them to work on. At the same time though: Good luck! Edited August 26, 2019 by TomLiles Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted August 26, 2019 Share #23 Posted August 26, 2019 While I agree that the practicality of this is limited, I disagree with the idea that the S lenses won't perform. The S lenses perform superbly on the Panasonic S1, without any need for optical corrections, including in the "100mp" high resolution mode. As far as I am aware, optics are optics, and the challenges of going from digital sensor to film is far less problematic than going from film to digital sensor...no angle of incidence problems etc. These lenses are really excellent, and will show that on most bodies, digital or film. Can you elaborate on the rude confidence you have that they are not going to perform like S lenses on any other system? It seems to me that they are not using optical corrections in body, unlike some other Leica lens lines. If you can put a piece of film behind them in the right place, flat and plane parallel, it seems like they should do a great job of drawing an image on it. This is of course leaving aside the technical and practical challenges. I agree that there are plenty of film cameras that will do this better, unless of course Leica makes their own analog version, which seems extraordinarily unlikely. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomLiles Posted August 27, 2019 Share #24 Posted August 27, 2019 Proof in the pudding is of course the correct philosophy to have, Stuart, I am with you there. And it is also important not to be one of those a-priori naysayers (of the internet garden variety), which I may come across like above -- and sorry for that! -- because people trying things that don't make perfect sense on paper is how new stuff generally gets discovered. Casual negativity is not a good look, for sure. If anyone makes this work, or even has a go, power to them! At the same time, without trying anything it isn't unreasonable to assume that S lenses should never be as good as they are on S bodies, for the straightforward reason that is the use-case they were designed and optimized for. The real question, I suppose, would be: even if you could get S-lenses to work with a film back for recording, would that combo outdo any existing film-system/platform available for similar cost? My intuition is that film would be the limiting factor in this optical system; perhaps many of the top-end film era lenses already touched that boundary? Be interesting to see if anyone ever finds out 👍 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 27, 2019 Share #25 Posted August 27, 2019 (edited) One benefit of using S lenses on any body is that optical corrections are built into the lens rather than relying on camera software corrections (due to the nature of a DSLR, which would reveal uncorrected optical issues through the OVF). And the lenses are designed to meet tight digital tolerances. Jeff Edited August 27, 2019 by Jeff S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan.y Posted August 28, 2019 Share #26 Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) On 8/26/2019 at 7:59 PM, Stuart Richardson said: While I agree that the practicality of this is limited, I disagree with the idea that the S lenses won't perform. The S lenses perform superbly on the Panasonic S1, without any need for optical corrections, including in the "100mp" high resolution mode. As far as I am aware, optics are optics, and the challenges of going from digital sensor to film is far less problematic than going from film to digital sensor...no angle of incidence problems etc. These lenses are really excellent, and will show that on most bodies, digital or film. Some lenses designed for digital MF sensors require screw-in corrective lenses when used on film to adjust for the different thickness of film. But being SLR lenses the S wouldn't require such correction, I agree. And they surely resolve sufficiently for most film. Stacking S to SL to M on a view camera, you'd still be missing a shutter And I suspect the M mount would vignette on a 645 frame. A CS lens adapted to film back using the Sinar adapter seems feasible... And Thalias on a Alpa FPS with a film back is definitely feasible, if prohibitively costly. 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 August 28, 2019 by alan.y 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/294624-idea-film-body-for-s-lenses/?do=findComment&comment=3807915'>More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted August 28, 2019 Author Share #27 Posted August 28, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) My original idea and the only ting I would use is a fully integrated S-film body. I dont care about image circle, I would just accept what the lenses can offer. In my experience I do not believe the S-lenses need much if any correction. Just take S-body, integrate a film holder/transport system, and make it no bigger than the S, this would be ideal. If its 30x45 than its 30x45 crop on 120 film, fine for me. AF would be nice but if its too difficult make it MF and include a split screen / microprism. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan.y Posted August 28, 2019 Share #28 Posted August 28, 2019 Vieri wrote that the S24 uses built-in software correction of moustache distortion. If he's right it'd be the only S lens that needs it. I actually had the 24 for a while, but I don't remember the moustache distortion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 28, 2019 Share #29 Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) Ummm.... Leica says that the S lenses are designed including the sensor cover glass as part of the optical computation - they assume a cover glass (and its refractive index) is present as one of the lens elements. Like those teles with a built-in filter slot. Or the 60mm Biogons designed only for the lunar Hassies that had Réseau plates (glass in front of the film to produce the little measuring marks "+"). There has to be at least a neutral piece of glass (1.0x filter) of the correct thickness in the correct location for the light rays to focus correctly. Otherwise you get a certain amount of mush. Note that the Zeiss Biogon lens formula (blue square at top) includes the flat plate as part of the optics. And the note top of page 2 - "Only for Réseau cameras" https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/Biogon5.6_60mm_ZEISS.pdf Edited August 28, 2019 by adan 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan.y Posted August 28, 2019 Share #30 Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, adan said: Ummm.... Leica says that the S lenses are designed including the sensor cover glass as part of the optical computation - they assume a cover glass (and its refractive index) is present as one of the lens elements. Like those teles with a built-in filter slot. Or the 60mm Biogons designed only for the lunar Hassies that had Réseau plates (glass in front of the film to produce the little measuring marks "+"). There has to be at least a neutral piece of glass (1.0x filter) of the correct thickness in the correct location for the light rays to focus correctly. Otherwise you get a certain amount of mush. Note that the Zeiss Biogon lens formula (blue square at top) includes the flat plate as part of the optics. And the note top of page 2 - "Only for Réseau cameras" https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/Biogon5.6_60mm_ZEISS.pdf The newer Rodenstock Diagon-S lenses, designed for digital sensors, also require screw-in corrective optics for use on film. But those like the Biogon sit close to the sensor. On a reflex lens, would you get a certain amount of mush, or just a slightly shifted focal plane? By the way, does one get observably mushy corners using the latest Summicron-M 28mm (11672) on film? Edited August 28, 2019 by alan.y Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McMaster Posted August 28, 2019 Share #31 Posted August 28, 2019 6 hours ago, alan.y said: Vieri wrote that the S24 uses built-in software correction of moustache distortion. If he's right it'd be the only S lens that needs it. I actually had the 24 for a while, but I don't remember the moustache distortion. Built-in like the GFX lenses, or just more noticeable in LR after correction? john Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgrayson3 Posted August 28, 2019 Share #32 Posted August 28, 2019 Looks like barrel distortion to me. Can be turned on and off in LR. Corrected 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! Uncorrected Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Uncorrected ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/294624-idea-film-body-for-s-lenses/?do=findComment&comment=3808223'>More sharing options...
peterv Posted August 28, 2019 Share #33 Posted August 28, 2019 Nice photo Matt, to me it's clear that distortion like that on a 19mm FF equivalent FOV would not have made me loose any sleep over it, back in the film-era. As for the cover glass compensation adan is talking about, I wonder how big of a problem this would actually be in 'real world' analog film practice and how easy/difficult it would be to get the compensation - if needed - in the right spot? I have a feeling that the cover glass is not very thick in S cameras, but who knows for sure how much the projected S-lens image on a piece of film who be deteriorated? 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted August 28, 2019 Share #34 Posted August 28, 2019 I am kind of with Peter on this one. I would be curious to see to what extent is matters on film. If I can find a way to get a lens on my view camera, I will give it a try. I have already processed 20 sheets of 8x10 and 4x5 today...adding a few more is not going to make much of a difference. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan.y Posted August 28, 2019 Share #35 Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, John McMaster said: Built-in like the GFX lenses, or just more noticeable in LR after correction? john Again I am just quoting Vieri here. I don't remember noticing this on my 24mm during my time with it. But Vieri claims there's baked-in correction of moustache distortion. If this is true, the 24mm would be unique in the S line-up in having / needing this. "As you can see in this Leica Super-Elmar-S 24mm f/3.5 review, the images created with this lens present no distortion. However, since looking through the lens you can see a little bit of complex “moustache” distortion, which disappears in the final image, I think some clever profiling happens in camera to correct for whatever distortion there was to begin with. Honestly, though, I am not a purist or a lens designer: I am a photographer. While I perfectly understand that correcting for distortion in software might reduce sharpness in the corrected areas, and while I agree that having a lens perfectly corrected for everything would be fantastic, let’s not forget that lens design is a matter of compromises." https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2016/09/leica-super-elmar-s-24mm-f3-5-review-on-the-leica-s-typ-007.html Edited August 28, 2019 by alan.y 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterv Posted August 29, 2019 Share #36 Posted August 29, 2019 To refresh my knowledge about sensor stack thickness and all that, I dug up these articles by Lensrentals' Roger Cicala. Again, because our S lenses were designed for an SLR, I would not expect too much 'missing cover glass trouble'. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now