These are the first photos I have taken with my "new" Zorki-c. They are not brag shots. I just wandered around our back yard in the typical overcast weather of a central Pennsylvania winter, and took some test shots to see how well (or if) the Zorki would work.
Note the side-by-side presentation with Nikon D200 photos. I used the Nikkor 18-200VR set to 35mm focal length. I was using the D200 as an exposure meter, so I went ahead and snapped a duplicate photo.
Is this the sharpness I should expect from an Industar lens?
http://www.br-digiphoto.com/0701Zorki
Thanks,
Bill Rogers
Note the side-by-side presentation with Nikon D200 photos. I used the Nikkor 18-200VR set to 35mm focal length. I was using the D200 as an exposure meter, so I went ahead and snapped a duplicate photo.
Is this the sharpness I should expect from an Industar lens?
http://www.br-digiphoto.com/0701Zorki
Thanks,
Bill Rogers
markinlondon
Elmar user
The photos look OK, Bill. Re the sharpness, I'd question what level of sharpening the D200 was applying to the pictures and also ask about the film scans. That could have more to do with the difference than lens performance. A good Industar can be a nice thing, Tessar type lenses usually are.
vicmortelmans
Well-known
No! Return it to the factory and demand a replacement!
Groeten,
Vic
Groeten,
Vic
fidget
Lemon magnet
They don't look as good as I would expect. Before I blamed the lens, I would consider the scan and movement whilst taking. I assume that you have an I-22 or I-50 on your Zorki. I have examples of these but don't use them extensively. Pics from them do have a different "quality" from my later FSU glass. The images tend to look vintage, assessment of their sharpness has never crossed my mind, although it would if I were to print some 8x10, I guess. I guess that these have been store processed, if these are the scans provided by them, be very aware that store scans vary considerably and can be very poor indeed. I once sold on some lenses on the strength of store prints (didn't look sharp even at 6"x4"). Only printing them myself did I see that my simple enlarger kit was way better. OTOH, I've had bad lenses too.
(I could help more here. I could try a comparison with a few of my lenses and your D200, just send it over for the spring and I'll see what I can do
Dave...
(I could help more here. I could try a comparison with a few of my lenses and your D200, just send it over for the spring and I'll see what I can do
Dave...
wyk_penguin
Well-known
That is a bit soft, esp. around the corners. What f stop are you using? Try using a tripod or some kind of support next time, just to be sure that it's the lens' fault.
mike goldberg
The Peaceful Pacific
FSU Lenses
FSU Lenses
Hi Bill, wyk_penguin & All,
Hmm... the Nikon shots do look a bit sharper. I'm with the guys above; there are several variables:
- camera on tripod?
- aperture?
- film & developing?
- SCAN?
- RESIZING of scan
Resizing rearranges the pixels, and I often just play around with that until it looks good.
I'm no expert, having shot my first roll of Fuji Superior 200, with a recently acquired K4a & J8M 53/2. See thumbnails, 1/50 at f2.8 and at f.2. The Kawasaki was at f5.6.
Bottom line? You should be satisfied with your glass.
Ciao, mike
FSU Lenses
Hi Bill, wyk_penguin & All,
Hmm... the Nikon shots do look a bit sharper. I'm with the guys above; there are several variables:
- camera on tripod?
- aperture?
- film & developing?
- SCAN?
- RESIZING of scan
Resizing rearranges the pixels, and I often just play around with that until it looks good.
I'm no expert, having shot my first roll of Fuji Superior 200, with a recently acquired K4a & J8M 53/2. See thumbnails, 1/50 at f2.8 and at f.2. The Kawasaki was at f5.6.
Bottom line? You should be satisfied with your glass.
Ciao, mike
Attachments
Last edited:
P
pshinkaw
Guest
I think the look quite good. The digital is giving you better sharpness in the corners, but that is what digitals do. Corner-to-corner sharpness does not always equal beautifull photography.
My experience with Soviet cameras has been that the shutters always operate a little or a lot slower than marked. If you underexpose by setting a higher than metered shutter speed, you might get less camera movement and still get good exposures (actually you might get more correct exposures).
Also, the scan settings can affect the final result more than you might think.
Another area to think about is that the f3.5 Tessar (Industar) formula lenses produce their optimal sharpness at between f5.6 and f11. You might experience some very slight degradation at f16.
-Paul
My experience with Soviet cameras has been that the shutters always operate a little or a lot slower than marked. If you underexpose by setting a higher than metered shutter speed, you might get less camera movement and still get good exposures (actually you might get more correct exposures).
Also, the scan settings can affect the final result more than you might think.
Another area to think about is that the f3.5 Tessar (Industar) formula lenses produce their optimal sharpness at between f5.6 and f11. You might experience some very slight degradation at f16.
-Paul
Xmas
Veteran
You need a good loope and the negatives, and you need to see how the stone work on the cottage shows.
The attachments are an Indust 1/60 f5.6 hand held running an infection, but the scanner may be the limiting problem on the pull out.
The marina sign is above the red car, yours shots should be better
Noel
The attachments are an Indust 1/60 f5.6 hand held running an infection, but the scanner may be the limiting problem on the pull out.
The marina sign is above the red car, yours shots should be better
Noel
Attachments
Malcolm_J
Member
Bill Rogers,
The anwer is "no". My first Soviet RF was a FED2 with an Industar 61LD lense. I bought it cheaply as a curio and had very little expectation of it actually producing good pictures. I have been consistently astounded by the sharpness and contrast it can achieve. I am a pretty lousy photographer, I have never impressed myself. But I managed to take some really great shots with that old FED. So I have bought some more of these lovely old cameras. You should expect a magical crispness and contrast.
It may be that the development has let you down. It may be that you just have a duff camera. I would judge by the prints or slides, rather than by the digital images. A computer screen has only a limited resolution after all.
Another point is that you are comparing a very old camera made in a very poor country, with a spanking new camera made in a very rich country with the most modern technology. I am inclined to think that the "progress" made by camera technology in the last 50 years has been deliberately overhyped by marketing. I doubt that SLRs are really better cameras than rangefinders, but they had marketing muscle behind them and they became accepted. Digital cameras can take excellent pictures. I do not use rangefinders because I dislike digitals - far from it! The main reason I don't have a digital is simply that I can't get through the astounding choice!
The anwer is "no". My first Soviet RF was a FED2 with an Industar 61LD lense. I bought it cheaply as a curio and had very little expectation of it actually producing good pictures. I have been consistently astounded by the sharpness and contrast it can achieve. I am a pretty lousy photographer, I have never impressed myself. But I managed to take some really great shots with that old FED. So I have bought some more of these lovely old cameras. You should expect a magical crispness and contrast.
It may be that the development has let you down. It may be that you just have a duff camera. I would judge by the prints or slides, rather than by the digital images. A computer screen has only a limited resolution after all.
Another point is that you are comparing a very old camera made in a very poor country, with a spanking new camera made in a very rich country with the most modern technology. I am inclined to think that the "progress" made by camera technology in the last 50 years has been deliberately overhyped by marketing. I doubt that SLRs are really better cameras than rangefinders, but they had marketing muscle behind them and they became accepted. Digital cameras can take excellent pictures. I do not use rangefinders because I dislike digitals - far from it! The main reason I don't have a digital is simply that I can't get through the astounding choice!
ully
ully
Not bad at all.
Not bad at all.
Considering the price difference in lens and that the D200 is shapening, I would say they are pretty darned good.
Cheers
Not bad at all.
Considering the price difference in lens and that the D200 is shapening, I would say they are pretty darned good.
Cheers
Thanks to all. There are many areas in which I can find improvement. I have Parkinson's disease, so camera shake may be a factor. I'll use the tripod next time. Also, I'm using an inexpensive flatbed scanner to scan the negatives. Finally, the wet work was done at my local Sooper Wally Mart.
Nevertheless, I seem to have come up with a good Zorki - the shutter speed appears corrrect, no light leaks, and good quality shutter cloth. At worst, I wanted a vintage quality for certain photos, and now I have it. At best ... well, we'll see.
I know comparing a D200 to a Zorki is an apples and oranges comaprison ... but these are the only fruits in my basket right now.
Thanks again.
Bill
Nevertheless, I seem to have come up with a good Zorki - the shutter speed appears corrrect, no light leaks, and good quality shutter cloth. At worst, I wanted a vintage quality for certain photos, and now I have it. At best ... well, we'll see.
I know comparing a D200 to a Zorki is an apples and oranges comaprison ... but these are the only fruits in my basket right now.
Thanks again.
Bill
Valkir1987
Well-known
I wonder what the lens does when it is brighter and sunnier. (Keeping an industar 22/50 in mind) I think a lense with a large aperture (like F2) takes a better deal with weak light conditions, even when you take a longer exposure time and stop down at F5,6 for example. However i'm never really satisfied with pictures taken on a cloudy day, unless they are taken in black and white.
Greetings
Greetings
fidget
Lemon magnet
BillRogers said:
There you go. It doesn't matter how good a lens you use, the scanner will be the limiting factor. You could say here that you are comparing the D200 to your inexpensive scanner. No contest?
Dave..
raftman
Established
I'll go along with the conensus here and say that from what I've seen, no, generally Industar lenses do yield better results than they seemed to in those instances.
Xmas
Veteran
BillXmas said:
Real sorry to here about med condition, mine is only an appendix, that annoys. I was attached to (coiled around) a lamp post for the earlier post otherwise I could not get this resolution at 1/60, the alternate is a monopod which I do use when I need pin sharp.
If the Ru lens has not been mistreated you should do better then my scan, as it was a flat bed 2400 bpi scan, but you need to use slow film (above Fchrome100) or B&W as what you see is the limiting factor of the lens and film and your technique, and the 'tessar' in good condition is still good at 5.6-11.
It is simple to examine the negs with the lens (if you dont have a loope) and if you can see the difference between centre and edge then you can see the lens performance otherwise it is the other things that are the problem, e.g. negative film - no good.
Enjoy your camera mine a (1e) is a joy, or will be after I remove all the 'wax' lube.
Noel