charles.K wrote:
Really nice shots Makten I really like the camera. My first SLR was a Nikkormat FTN
rsolti13 wrote:
Makten, like it!
akul wrote:
Makten
Did you scan film ? I like the first shot a lot. grain works very well for this particular shot.
philber wrote:
Martin, as usual, your shoots really work for me.
sangdabom73 wrote:
Ohhhh, fm2 was my very first camera!!!
Too bad I can't use ze lenses on older canon cameras...
Thanks all! Yes, the FM2 is such a nice camera. Just as nice as my M6, but cost close to nothing.
The film was scanned with an Epson V700.
Edit: By the way, I think the "Zeiss look" is a bit odd with B/W film. So I'm probably gonna get a cheap 50/1.8 instead and use the ZF:s on digital only.
BennyR wrote:
Nice shots rsolti13 however EXIF data says 35mm.
Thanks. Yes, I am a slacker when it comes to updating my 'non-cpu lens' data. I have the ZF.1 that does not provide electronic aperture reading to the camera so it is manual. It is the 50 for sure
Philber, I can just imagine Luka's comment about the Planar Is it a center crop or no? Looks to be a crop from slightly outside center top right. It does not appear to be shake....just soft to me
philber wrote:
Guys, I need some advice here. I have uploaded a low-light shot, cropped to about 100%, and it looks horrible, and it is not the only one. Forget the noise, which is not my concern. What I would like to know, is it camera shake, is it lens softness, is it missed focus, or something else? Thanks for the help...
Makten wrote:
Edit: By the way, I think the "Zeiss look" is a bit odd with B/W film. So I'm probably gonna get a cheap 50/1.8 instead and use the ZF:s on digital only.
Now that is odd! I've seen outstanding B&W work done with Zeiss lenses. Care to elaborate more, Makten?
edwardkaraa wrote:
Now that is odd! I've seen outstanding B&W work done with Zeiss lenses. Care to elaborate more, Makten?
Sure! The classic look of B&W photography, is not very sharp. Not with 24x36 anyway. So when using for instance the 35/2, the results looks odd. There isn't "supposed" to be extreme local contrast, sharpness and 3D in B&W images!
Look at this, shot with the 35/2.
The building in the background looks nice, but that's because it's out of focus! The forground on the other hand, is "too sharp" for my liking. And if I sharpen it less, it'll look boring without the nice grain.
The 50/1.4 is much better. The very high resolution just drowns in the grain anyway, and it behaves much more neutral than on digital. So does the Biogon 35/2.8.
I've tried the 100/2 too, but haven't PP:d any shot with it yet.
cool pics form the sky, denoir!
one from my holidays, either 25mm or 35mm, cant remember: You can try and guess which country it is in (there is an easy clue).
Wow, lots of post here in past 5 weeks, I just read +30 pages. Wonderful photos! Also seems that we have a lot of new posters, welcome!
A little disappointed that we still didn't get tele from Zeiss, "just" 1.4/35. The waiting continues...
Shoot some photos of friend's BMW M3. I didn't know that I need to shoot photos of car and didn't have 85ZE with me, so had to shoot with 100ZE, not optimal for my liking for large medium distance object shooting with need for "3D". All presented here shot with f/2, polarizer to kill some of the reflection and HDR to flatten the high dynamic range to something more manageable.
Philippe, your shot just looks slightly OOF particularly accentuated in low light. At f/1.4 the focus is very narrow and critical. My experience at f/1.4 even close up, the lens is sharp, but with a portrait like glow, which was the original intent. Maybe test the lens on a focus chart at f/1.4 at different distances and see where the focus shifts or maybe slightly out of calibration focusing screen.
I really like the camera. My first SLR was a Nikkormat FTN 
