Leicina Special VS Nikon R10
Posted 23 May 2008 - 05:08 PM
To anwer your question:
In-between these two cameras, on any level: design, ergonomics, optical resolving power of the glass, features, functions, expandability, accessories, manufacturer's quality controls and so on, the Leitz Leicina Special withthe Schneider Leicina-Optivaron 1:1,8 / 6-66mm (M-Mount!) with Leitz Leicinamatic is the better choice than the Nikon R10 with the non-interchangeable Nikon Cine-Nikkor 1:1,4 / 7-70mm.
The Nikon has a big hard-core following, partly due to the now discredited internet myth that it has a register-pin, or even two register pins, or - as Jürgen Lossau once claimed - two double register pins (that would make the Nikon R10 a Mitchell S35 ). Obviously, that is not the case. It's not that the R10 is inherently a bad camera, but in comparison to the Leicina, it's a less professional solution with will allow you to grow much less with the same equipment than the Leicina would.
To shamlessley plug Super 8 Today and myself, the recent issue of that mag featured an article on the history and features of the Leicina camera system, and an article on the Nikon R10 is forthcoming.
If you want me to expand on my above point of view, please feel free to post so.
Posted 24 May 2008 - 01:17 AM
Back to the question, i've only had my r10 a couple of months, image quality is superb, auto exposure very accurate, great run-n-gun camera, viewfinder a lot brighter and slightly easier to focus compared to the special, r10 handgrip does not fold, i don't like the way the camera seats when tripod mounted. Leicina build quality is much higher, its one of the finest if not best super 8 camera ever made, 10mm cinegon is awesome, proper iris on the lenses, camera sits properly when tripod mounted, auto exposure spot on every time, leicina handgrip a little awkward, but there is an additional handgrip you can buy for the camera. If i had to choose one, then the leicina wins.
Posted 24 May 2008 - 08:24 PM
...because there will be a dedicated article on the Schneider Macro-Cinegon 1:1.8 / 10mm and primes in general.
For the purpose of these camera articles dealing with top gear in a ranked and introductory way, slowly establishing for newbies and beginners how these (in the end) 12 top cameras all compare to each other, we decided to prioritise the standard-issue supplied vario lenses in-text (here the Schneider 11x6mm), that will readily come with 2nd hand acquisitions. This was done for the 4008 and the Special, and will be maintend in future articles on cameras with interchangeable lens option, too.
Thanks to material kindly supplied by Leica's archives and Schneider-Kreuznach, there was already alot/too much to scribble about that 11x6, and editoral space as well as colour printed pages were already scarce for that issue that saw Chris migrate his production process to a up-to-date system.
A reference to Leica's Leica-M outstanding prime and vario lens accessories was made (which offered so much more than just the Cinegon BTW - despite its S8 optical calculation supremacy, the Leica-M and Leicaflex prime lenses plus the Arri Stahl/Standard option mentioned allow much better glass to be put in front of Special).
I am still awaiting info about the Cinegon glass from Schott Glass Katalog in order to gain some insight into its history... there aren't many sources on it around even at Schneider-Kreuznach and especially at Leitz ( )- unlike with the Schneider 11x6mm which has great archive stuff on lens elements, groupings and claimed optimisations mentioned in the the texts (the issues are all interlinked; expect this optical debate to be continued in the forthcoming issues on the A 512 and Nizo pro).
So don't worry, primes will get a deserved treat. Sorry to hear that you aren't happy with the articles. Please feel free to provide me with further suggestions so that I can make them better and up to increased quality demans. Many thanks for that and best wishes,
Posted 25 May 2008 - 06:24 AM
Say, did leitz add more elements into the 6-66 on the leicina? if so, any ideas why? btw, can't wait for the prime lens article...
Posted 28 May 2008 - 11:21 PM
awfully sorry about the delay in getting back to you!
There are indeed differences between the Schneider Beaulieu-Optivaron 1:1,8 / 6-66mm (C-Mount) with Beaulieu Reglomatic and the Schneider Leicina-Optivaron 1:1,8 / 6-66mm (M-Mount) with Leitz Leicinamatic.
There has been much debate about potential differences between the two, particularly in respect to Leitz adding lens elements in order to "improve" the Schneider 11x6mm's capabilities. Santo back in the pioneering heydays of this forum was adamant that there had been changes and that those greatly ameliorated the optical resolving power of the Leitz-branded version over those used by Beaulieu.
(readers: for an overview of Santo threads, still the most read in this forum, go to the pinned FAQ's first post here)
Based on Schneider's archival sources, Santo was indeed right that the Schneider 11x6mm was changed for the version on the Leitz Leicina Special:
Instead of 13 lens elements in 12 optical groupings for the Beaulieu version, it has 16 lens elements in 12 optical groupings in the Leitz version.
This means that while the optical groupings remain unchanged, 3 (!) lens elements are added to the optical path. That is a considerable amount of glass thrown into this lens! And we all know that "more glass" isn't equal to "better picture" - quite the contrary, actually! I would choose a Polaroid Pola Triplet over a MegaloOptics Monster-Variodominatrix any day.
Because the number of the optical groupings remains unchanged, this would either indicate a radical redesign of the optomechanical workings - in essence a total regrouping of the lens elements into same-number lens groups; or it would indicate that 3 lens elements had been somehow added to existing lens groups, basically like glue-on add-ons.
The first suggestions would mean - well, basically, it being almost a new lens design. This is somewhat possible but would mean significant costs. I am unsure about the financial probability of that.
The second suggestion would mean that the optical path would actually allow the adding of lens elements to existing groupings. Although I am not an optical engineer, I somewhat doubt that this would be willy-nilly possible. Note that the Schneider 6-70mm on the Beaulieu 5-6/7/9008-series has also 16 lens elements like the Schneider 11x6mm for Leitz, but has 3 more lens groupings to accomodate them, 15 in total! That makes sense from an optical construction angle. Now if there had been an additional lens grouping to the Leitz version, i.e. 13 instead of the 12, then that would make similarly sense and be probable as the 3 new Leitz elements would form part of a new group to reduce stray light or reduce other abberational problems in the lens, thus increasing the quality of the lens' depictions. But the 11x6mm for Leitz featuring the same amount of glass without any change to the basic grouping used for the Beaulieu's Schneider 11x6mm doesn't do it for me, in light of the above.
What I would require to grasp this would be a cross-section of both Schneider 11x6mm versions. And those are unavailable to me, basically because that material is not supplied from current Beaulieu reps, is unavailable from Schneider, and - worst of all - got lost in all the mergers and demergers that Leitz went through since the late 1970s. So I don't have the plans from the Death Star, and no Bothans able to organise them for us .
Until that hasn't changed, I am not ready to make claims that the Leitz lens is either better or worse then the Beaulieu one, or that Leitz "improved" it. Our panel wasn't able to see any visible difference between the two in the Top Camera Guide shoot-outs.
There is of course another possibility that I ponder about, which strikes me as a bit simplistic but hey, might be it: It might well be that the three added elements are part of or actually are the prism of the beamsplitter design that Leitz used instead of Beaulieu's mirror reflex shutter system. What about that, forum members?
Anyway, I attach a Super 8 lens overview chart for Schneider lenses using Schott elements. It's a rather shoddy quality, but I think most hear will be able to decipher both given values and German language meanings. If not, I am ready to assist, of course.
Enjoy, and looking forward to hearing alternative viewpoints on this matter,