ottokbre wrote:
I would shoot more 800 speed film if my kids ever let me out of the house after 7pm and before 8am.
I was surprised as to how good the Lomo(Kodak?) 800 is. I rated it at 800 unlike all those youtubers who insist on rating all their C41 films at +2 ev...
I mean, what's the point of ISO 800 film - and the expense of it - if you don't use it at 800? Especially in a P&S camera which tend not to be great at larger apertures.
Desmolicious wrote:
I was surprised as to how good the Lomo(Kodak?) 800 is. I rated it at 800 unlike all those youtubers who insist on rating all their C41 films at +2 ev...
I mean, what's the point of ISO 800 film - and the expense of it - if you don't use it at 800? Especially in a P&S camera which tend not to be great at larger apertures.
I'm learning the hard way that overexposed film isnt the same as shooting for the shadows. I've been shooting some outdated Max 400 at like 200 and 100 and it doesn't benefit at all. It's just as grainy AND it's washed out. Box speed it y'all!
Desmolicious wrote:
Of note, the Canon SureShot Ace (RIP) has the worst lens out of my p&s collection. If I had used my Samsung AF Slim (non zoom) I most probably would not see any difference optically - at least at these apertures (f8-f11)
You should do that experiment with the AF Slim and M7. I know I'd like to see the results!
geekcop wrote:
You should do that experiment with the AF Slim and M7. I know I'd like to see the results!
A few years ago I did a side by side test with my Rollei QZ35W and Leica Elmarit Asph 28 2.8. At 28mm the Rollei is a 2.8 lens. Pixel peeping I could only notice a very slight difference in sharpness in the corners at 2.8. Stopped down no difference.
Of note, I did not test for other things like distortion or flare resistance. The Elmarit has the best flare resistance of any Leica lens I have used so I know for sure it would win that one. I wish I kept those results! It really upset the fanbois…
