Strange Impressions Of The Canon 310 XL - Focussing For One

[S8 Booster]

From my recent tests with the Kodak V1 200T & Fuji F500T neg films I got a firm impression that this cam has a very good lens - the neg films were surprisingly sharp to me anyway.

However, this little cam with only 3x zoom is very touchy on focussing - at least with the negs tested. Really proper focussing is required for "good" shots. I have never got the same impression when using K40 film with the same cam for some reason. I have to re-check with the K40 later. Could be I have overlooked something there.

With neg films the dept of field is not very big and accurate focussing is a must - this surprises me. Thought a cam with more or less no zoom should be more forgiving but not so.

Strange but that is my impression.

My TwinOla DuNots

R

[super8man]

depth of field should be irrelevant to the particular kind of camera used in a single format - it all depends on distance of the subject, f-stop/shutter speed and focal length. Of course, super 8 is so "friendly" compared to 16mm and 35 mm since the depth of field is greater at a given exposure for the same "apparent" focal length of the scene (8vs16vs35vs6x6vs4x5 and 8x10).

Cheers,
m

[S8 Booster]

I know. That is why I was so surprised by seeing it was that critical because at those focal lenghts K40 is usually give-away friendly.

What is sharp is blistering sharp - outside that rapidly unsharp - indeed a very narrow limit.

R

[Petteri]

Actually it should be v.v., because on K40 you will need to have smaller f-stop than whit stocks you used. 8O

Petteri

[Santo]

depth of field should be irrelevant to the particular kind of camera used in a single format - it all depends on distance of the subject, f-stop/shutter speed and focal length.
m

So one would think...

Super 8 Booster is likely seeing a real phenomema with his 310 having different depth of field performance than his other cams. I really don't think film can possibly have anything to do with it.

Probably he's experiencing a combination of two things. First, Canon's notorious focus shift problems. Second, lens quality and construction has, believe it or not, a measurable effect on depth of field which can be observed in testing and in the lens manufacturer's published data! The better the lens is in coming close to the optical ideal, the greater its depth of field at different focal points until it matches the limits of the ideal (which no lens does). Going hand in hand with that is the fact that the closer the lens is to the optical ideal, the better is its performance wide open. A really great lens will reach its optimum at no more than 2 f-stops above its wide open rating. The greatest lenses the world has ever seen for photography (Leica's latest) do it at one f-stop above or less. Japanese consumer-grade 1970's zooms like we see on the typical super 8 camera are soft mush shooting at one f-stop above their open rating design.

I'm not making this depth of field difference thing up. Just an example in super 8, easily checked by anybody since these manuals and depth of field tables are right here on the site. The Angenieux 6-90 is a true professional grade lens made for super 8. Only a couple of lenses of this caliber were made for the format. The Nikon R10 has a very good "prosumer" grade lens. Likely it is the best Japanese lens made for the format.

The difference in performance level is small in the f5.6 range and beyond, as lens irregularities are largely compensated for. However, when you drop below that range, trying to shoot at say, f2.8, we see the failings of Deming "sampled quality manufacturing" processes versus labour intensive exacting lens-by-lens construction to real precision standards. Simply look at the depth of field charts for the Angenieux 6-90 and the Nikon R10 and you can see how this pans out when combined with less cost compromises in the design process like the Angenieux has:

Take, say, the 40mm range. And do see how it performs at a demanding f2.8. Starting out at focusing at 1.5m, we see they are rated the same. But as you go up the chart, you see that there develops a significant difference in performance as the Angenieux's superior, closer to ideal lens, greatly overtakes the Nikon. By the time we try and focus to 10m, the difference is very significant. In fact, the Nikon has 4.73m depth of field to work with, while the Angenieux has 7.4m!!! You can see such performance advantage work its way throughout the chart.

What's also interesting to note, is that we can also clearly see the closer to ideal lens phenomenon when comparing primes with zooms of the era. In super 8 we have the sharpest lens ever made in the Leicina Special's Cinegon 10mm. What is the depth of field for the Cinegon focused at 1.5m or above? Well, everything above 1m away is set on infinity! A very dramatic example that the construction of a lens makes a big difference.

Now the Canon 310 has a very small zoom. I don't know how many elements it has or its construction – and I am hardly an expert on this stuff, I've only read a lot -- but think of how ludicrous it is to build such a lens in the 1970's. A mass consumer zoom lens rated at f1 ??? On a home movie camera? Meanwhile in 35mm still professional level, Leica's Noctilux is a prime rated at f1 and it blows everyone's minds and costs a fortune – and isn't up to par with their lenses rated at f2. Canon has their best lens, their f1.2 55mm FD – likely the best they ever made and ever will make -- and guess what? It cost even more than the Noctilux did! It had to. Canon never would have had the guts to try and market an f1 or f1.4 zoom at the time in their 35mm still film offerings. To keep from being completely disgraced it would have cost as much as a house. Yet they didn't hesitate in building zooms that fast and slapping them on a super 8 camera shipped off to the American consumer market where they were "good enough".

[S8 Booster]

The thing is; I fancy the "narrower" DOF - or whatever - it looks fancy professional aka 35mm. Just surpriced it could be achieved with this format/focal lenghts. Not that "distinct" with K40.

Makes more photographic angles avail.

Just need to be a little more accurate in focussing but that´s no big deal. I though it was fancy. that´s all

The phenomena it equally critical wide open or in the midrange and it is heavily expressed.

R

[Carlos 8mm]

If I´m not wrong the Canon 310 XL camera have a 1:1.0 8.5-25.5mm lens, right?

What could be the f number at 25.5 mm? 1:1.2 ?

I was thinking about a Super 8 camera with a turret lens system, as the oldies 16/8mm cameras.

A turret with three fast lenses:Wide angle, Normal, and Tele.
I´m talking about lenses with an aperture of f=0.95 - 1.

This will allow to shoot Indoors, Night scenes with low-medium speed film stocks.

A modified Beaulieu camera will rocks!


What´s your opinion?

Carlos.

[S8 Booster]

If I´m not wrong the Canon 310 XL camera have a 1:1.0 8.5-25.5mm lens, right?

What could be the f number at 25.5 mm? 1:1.2 ?

I do not know about this camera Carlos since it has no viewable f-stop meter but the 814/1014 XL-Ss are totally linear F/T1.4s over the entire focal length so since the 310 is a even newer cam and the zoom range is limited it should be a linear T1.0 As far as I know all S8 cams except the Nizos are T-stops as it seems so I am not sure the Beaulieu would gain anything over the 310 but I have an 1.2 lens on my 5008 so I may compare some day. It does not gain a lot over the 1014 XLS TF1.4 if any but the Schneider lens is hopelessly vignetting so it is clearly brighter in the centre while clearly darker at the edge circumfrence = approx same AVR light on the frame at FT1.2-1.4 between the cams as per now.

R

[Carlos 8mm]

Very interesting Info.

I´ve got a Chinon 60 SMR XL 220º camera with an 8-48mm f 1:1.2 lens.

So your Chinon 310 XL camera with its faster f 1:1.0 lens could get an addionnal 1/2 f-stop than my camera.


Bad news to me about Schneider lens. Did you meant that at maximun aperture (1.4) a vignette appears in the frame?

Do I must to use my Chinon XL camera for Low Light shooting instead my Beaulieu 3008 S with a Schneider-Kreutznach f 1:1.4 lens?


Carlos.

[drsanchez]

I have high hopes for the Canon 310. I just got one off of ebay (paid about $40) and shot my first rolls with it recently. Usually, with a new camera, I shoot one roll then wait til I get it developed to see if everything worked out alright before wasting rolls on an unkown entity. But this time I was so excited by the extra stop that I shot four rolls. But now the focussing thing worries me. With such a short zoom I had trouble setting the diopter (using the focus on infinity method....).

I got the camera so I could shoot indoor wedding stuff with no extra lights. I'm still not sure if I can but I'd like to squeeze as much out of the film as possible without using the 650 watt blinding monsters I have to use with K40 and my Nizo 561 (f 1:1.8 ?).

I'll post results soon.

[S8 Booster]

Very interesting Info.

I´ve got a Chinon 60 SMR XL 220º camera with an 8-48mm f 1:1.2 lens.

So your Canon 310 XL camera with its faster f 1:1.0 lens could get an addionnal 1/2 f-stop than my camera.

Carlos.

Actual tests are required Carlos. Reality may differ from data but on the paper that is true.

I´d say when light levels drop too much additional lights are required to get good images. Even with the Fuji F500T film & the 310 FT1.0 fill lights will make THE difference in imagery in the lower light limit so I see "the fastest lens" issue a little ióverfocused. It can be done - yes but with some care and skill.

Bad news to me about Schneider lens. Did you meant that at maximun aperture (1.4) a vignette appears in the frame?

Do I must to use my Chinon XL camera for Low Light shooting instead my Beaulieu 3008 S with a Schneider-Kreutznach f 1:1.4 lens?

Carlos.

My 5008 test was done well below FT1.4 but then the vignetting is severe. You´ll get a good bright centre image though. As light levels increase the vignetting will somewhat decrease but if you are balancing on the edge and do not want vignetting the Schneider may not be what you want.

I do not know the Chinon cam well. I saw Martin Baumgarten refer the Chinon ST series lenses to be (I read him unwillingly admitting) the lenses to be as "sharp" (often actually hard contrast though) as anything put onto a Beaulieu so you may get your goal

I´d make a comparisation test.

I ordered a Chinon ST1200 but it seem like gone with the wind in the mail so I will have to see.

The Beau/Schnei vignetting may be enhanced by the shutter system and I am to do a test to verify this some day.

R

[S8 Booster]

Santo, you are taking you mouth too full on the Canon lenses so I notice you have to spit it out again as usual. Anyway, Canon or any other Japanese maker you have heard the name of of before will deliver what it takes. The problem may be that lenses are made for spesific purposes or situations alt allround and as I see it the limitation often lays on the photographers not knowing their gear´s performance under various conditions rather than the (any) products themselves. I have a good example on an expert testing S8 cams way back which I will post later.

As for the Canon/Nikon lenses you are way off. This is pure rubbiish.

Recently I did an exact dual shoot using of a reference chart using the Fuji F500T film in tungsten light - no filter and as ever the 1014 swept the floor with with the R10 lensewise. Samples will follow. Aditionally the image steadiness was much better on the 1014 with this film However, I may have used the unmodified PP on the R10. Under verifying. Notes taken.

One should note though that the R10 lens is more than adequate to me and leaves no wishes open but there is a real difference in imagery delivered.

R

[Carlos 8mm]

Hi S8B,

excuse my curiosity: Have your Beuaulieu 5008 a variable shutter speed? What are the different shutter speeds a 24 fps?.

About the sharpness of Chinon Lenses, I can say Yes!
I used my 60 SMR XL and my buddy´s Chinon 200 XL, at 18 fps with a shutter speed of 1/30 sec. The obtained images looks sharp, specially with the 200 XL model.

Carlos.

[S8 Booster]

Hi S8B,

excuse my curiosity: Have your Beuaulieu 5008 a variable shutter speed? What are the different shutter speeds a 24 fps?.

Carlos.

As far as I know the fist model of 5008 had a variable shutter like the 4008 but the 2 later models only had one fixed shutter speed - 5008S&SM: 1/60th of a second at 24 fps like "real" motion cams use

R

[Santo]

Santo, you are taking you mouth too full on the Canon lenses so I notice you have to spit it out again as usual.

My mouth was full of eggs, potato, and coffee for breakfast. I swallowed.

Anyway, Canon or any other Japanese maker you have heard the name of of before will deliver what it takes. The problem may be that lenses are made for spesific purposes or situations alt allround and as I see it the limitation often lays on the photographers not knowing their gear´s performance under various conditions rather than the (any) products themselves. I have a good example on an expert testing S8 cams way back which I will post later.

Heck, I've met busy pro cinematographers who claim everything from their "point and shoot" to their Hi-8 camera is the best thing they ever shot with and then make all kinds of silly excuses for the short-comings when pressed. Human nature is funny that way. No surprise, they only use those on their own time and "mysteriously" would never try to pass off images created with those things to clients and only use professional calibre equipment on the job except under very exceptional circumstances.

As for the Canon/Nikon lenses you are way off. This is pure rubbiish.

Not all Nikon and Canon lenses are mediocre -- only a great majority of them. This is because they have had in place for a long time a two tier system of lenses. They have their Joe Shmoe consumer lenses, and they have their professional lenses. There is a wide gap between them in performance and cost though you wouldn't know it reading the wildly out of line Canon brag sheet manuals and literature. It makes for some pretty funny reading.

Obviously they could create lenses that delivered the goods to a very high level. Their designers weren't/aren't monkeys. But you aren't going to find those lenses on their super 8 cameras, because their lenses of that calibre at that time cost more than what their whole top of the line packed with gadgets and stuff super 8 cameras did! Think about it.

I would be very interested in seeing what you end up with for results doing a reasonably objective and competant comparison between your prosumer 1014 xl-s and the Beaulieu equiped with your newly aquired professional grade TV zoom Canon. Particularly using a variety of f-stops to really test the quality. However, that also would require that the TV zoom lens is properly set up to focus on the film plane to make comparisons valid. Which I doubt you'll bother to do.

Recently I did an exact dual shoot using of a reference chart using the Fuji F500T film in tungsten light - no filter and as ever the 1014 swept the floor with with the R10 lensewise. Samples will follow. Aditionally the image steadiness was much better on the 1014 with this film However, I may have used the unmodified PP on the R10. Under verifying. Notes taken.

One should note though that the R10 lens is more than adequate to me and leaves no wishes open but there is a real difference in imagery delivered.

I'd really like to see those images posted. I always enjoy seeing your tests, however I hope you aren't opening yourself up for another embarassing situation like the last half-dozen or so times. Make sure they at least sort of demonstrate what you claim they're demonstrating.