Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

ZI first roll
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:58 pm    Post subject: ZI first roll Reply with quote

I pushed a roll of cheapo Kodak 800 film that has been laying around the house for a while.
I wanted some quick results to evaluate the AE metering of the camera.
All there are shot in AE accept the silhouette.
I think the camera does pretty well.
The shot of liza is revealing to me.
Walgreens is the only shop that develops around here anymore. The ripped the negative and these are all of 36 that actually came thru OK.
They did not charge me and gave me 2 rolls free including development. I think I will give those away. Laughing
The film is terrible as you can see. Lens ZM 2/35.

















PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As Andy says, the last one shows how good the lens is. Ummmm 2/35 ZM, eh.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems like the meter is exposing for the shadows (unless the lab messed up the development completely)

You should now try a slide roll and see what happens, if the above results are accurate then I'd put a minus 2/3 EV exposure adjustment in the camera for shooting slides.

How does it feel to pass a film roll through the ZI? sigh Sad Rolling Eyes Smile


PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course it's difficult to get a decent impression with the trees and all, not excluding the color effects. However, I do see some nice bokeh in the leaves. Also, it looks like the sharpness of the lens is evident with the image of your dog! WOW!

So...Zeiss Ikon, huh? That's okay, I'm not jealous ONE BIT! Wink


PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This film looks super crap to me even worst than cheapest DM film.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice on the last, Andy, good job!


PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm happy you like that one Bill
It was the only creative shot of the roll.

Orio you have it. This camera does dig out the shadows a bit much.
This roll was purely to evaluate the meter. The film is really trash.
Yesterday I dropped off some Provia from this summer (don't remember the camera/lens).
I bought some Sensia 400 and Provia 400x and this Kodak E100G that these cats at the shop really like.
Apparently it is very color accurate and used for reproduction work.
Your suggestion is what I will go with. About -2/3 when using the AE mode.

The Camera is a really nice ride. I must admit that I would not suggest it to someone on a budget or in need of lenses.
The Bessa R2/3/4. Are just as capable and maybe more durable.
The All metal casing seems less rugged than the plastic coated metal frame Bessa's.
That said, the RF accuracy of the ZI is it's real call. You can actually see a difference in focus over a few inches when you line up on a straight object (say like a counter top).
If a person wants to do close focus and "bokeh" shots with a RF, the ZI is the one.
For landscapes and hyperfocal work. I would suggest to save the extra expense for more Biogons.
There are 7 ZM Biogons in 4 different focals.
For the price of a new ZI body one could have a Bessa R4a and a ZM 2/35 Wink


PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:45 am    Post subject: ZI Reply with quote

Hi all,

Have I missed something?

"I pushed a roll of cheapo Kodak 800 film that has been laying around the house for a while."

Pushing a consumer grade 800iso film and achieving these results should be satisfying.

Given that my monitor is over five years old and probably degrades the displayed images, I see nothing to complain about. Most of the photos were taken under fairly extreme conditions and show good exposure for the circumstances. Colour is good too, unless trees, sky, clouds, etc. are differently couloured outside Australia.

As for exposing for the shadows, surely it's the opposite case as most of the shadow areas are lacking in detail (on my monitor) and appear a little under-exposed, while bright areas such as sky and brightly lit foliage are correctly exposed. This is normal with built-in light meters. At least, it is with the cameras I own and use.

This my first post as a new member and I don't mean to be aggressively critical. Just giving public voice to a couple of my thoughts.