Archiver
Veteran
Internal metering of the Ikon is positioned to the lower left of the frame, just out of centre. Perhaps you're metering like a Leica, which reads from the central area?
Freakscene
Obscure member
The ISO standards for digital 'speed' and film speed are not the same. ISO 12232:2019 continues the confusing problem established in ISO 12232:2006 which provides digital still camera manufacturers a choice of five different techniques for determining the ISO and exposure index rating at each sensitivity for a particular camera. The five methods do not give identical results, nor do any of them compare exactly with film ISO speeds.
Even if both the cameras are precisely calibrated, manufacturers of digital cameras often fudge the ISO settings to provide more or less gain than the standard prescribes to meet market expectations.
Digital cameras are adequate to acceptable meters for print film for non-critical applications, but do not be surprised if your film and digital cameras give different readings of the same scenes.
Marty
Archiver
Veteran
If this forum had 'Likes' or 'Thank You' buttons, I would gladly hit them for your post.
CMur12
Veteran
If this forum had 'Likes' or 'Thank You' buttons, I would gladly hit them for your post.
Indeed! The information Marty provided here is completely new to me. I had no idea that ISO could be applied differently for film and digital.
- Murray
Freakscene
Obscure member
You are both too kind. But sometimes I wish my head was not full of this sort of stuff. I am sometimes reminded of Flaubert: "I observe everywhere the relentless spread of stupidity; it is so pervasive that it has invaded my own head".
Marty
Marty
Cowboy
Member
Guys, you are awesome, thanks for the replies!
I am aware that the method of measuring differs from camera to camera. So when comparing the results between the cameras I tried to have low contrast scenes. Of course with same f-stop and equivalent focal length (the Fuji 35/1,4 and the Sonnar 50/1,5, both stopped down to f2 more). My current "test scene" is my terrace with grey cement paving and grey winter skies - it can possibly not get more low contrast than that
Thank you for the interesting input about the different methods on how ISO is determined in digital cameras, Wikipedia is explaining it well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Digital_camera_ISO_speed_and_exposure_index
What I get from it is: The film/sensor speed essentially is a value which gives me as a photographer a correctly looking picture, given a certain brightness of the scene in combination with shutter speed and f-stop. Whether it is a correctly exposed slide film or a correctly looking jpeg does not really matter in the end.
Interestingly, my light meter as well as some light meter app deliver the same results as the Fuji.
I guess I really need to wait for the developed film.
Btw, any ZM users here that can replicate the findings?
I am aware that the method of measuring differs from camera to camera. So when comparing the results between the cameras I tried to have low contrast scenes. Of course with same f-stop and equivalent focal length (the Fuji 35/1,4 and the Sonnar 50/1,5, both stopped down to f2 more). My current "test scene" is my terrace with grey cement paving and grey winter skies - it can possibly not get more low contrast than that
Thank you for the interesting input about the different methods on how ISO is determined in digital cameras, Wikipedia is explaining it well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Digital_camera_ISO_speed_and_exposure_index
What I get from it is: The film/sensor speed essentially is a value which gives me as a photographer a correctly looking picture, given a certain brightness of the scene in combination with shutter speed and f-stop. Whether it is a correctly exposed slide film or a correctly looking jpeg does not really matter in the end.
Interestingly, my light meter as well as some light meter app deliver the same results as the Fuji.
I guess I really need to wait for the developed film.
Btw, any ZM users here that can replicate the findings?
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Interesting to see such an old thread come alive and to read about the complaints -real or imaginary. My newly bought bodies have been around the world and both work fine. Second-hand bodies now sell for more than I paid for mine 10 years ago.
Cowboy
Member
I definitely did not expect that and honestly I am a little impressed by it
I am currently scanning some slides I have shot a couple of years ago with that camera, they look just fine. I never even bothered to think about the whole topic until I stumbled across it as described. And if there is a real difference between digital and film ISO... then it is good to know and I am happy to have learned something new.
Regarding the prices... insane
. One of the few times where technical products gain value (looking at my Nikon Coolscan V).Out to Lunch
Ventor
True enough. I suppose that, so far, nothing new matches the antiquated Nikon Coolscan. I know a guy who has a mint one for sale ... but he lives in Europe. Cheers, OtL
Cowboy
Member
Yes, it is dark
Yes, it is dark
Update for everyone who might be following this thread: I got the slides back and they look one stop too dark. I did some exposure bracketing on my last roll of Provia 400X (-2, -1, 0, +1, +2) and +1 looks like it is correctly exposed. As this is consistent with the readings I get from the X-Pro1 I assume that something is indeed misaligned in the Zeiss.
Yes, it is dark
Update for everyone who might be following this thread: I got the slides back and they look one stop too dark. I did some exposure bracketing on my last roll of Provia 400X (-2, -1, 0, +1, +2) and +1 looks like it is correctly exposed. As this is consistent with the readings I get from the X-Pro1 I assume that something is indeed misaligned in the Zeiss.
twvancamp
Thom
I don't have an Ikon but I wish there was a thread like this for every camera/lens. Usually easy to find bad experiences and complaints, but probably true that in most cases very few users have an issue with any given piece of gear.