I just had a Yashica Electro 35 fixed. Bought a roll of superia 400 (cheapest to try out) to test out low light. It seems like ISO/ASA 400 is more than sufficient in a lot of low light situations cos the yashica wasn't blinking. Seems contrary to my SLR experience where ISO 1600 is needed at times. Maybe my pics were underexposed. Someone can explain?
Help on film
- Thread starter Temujin
- Start date
- Status
could be, maybe i should post this thread only after the photos are developed...
but i tried this exposure calculator and it seems correct that using ASA 400, hand holding the camera is possible albeit with a shutter speed of 1/20..
http://www.robert-barrett.com/photo/exposure_calculator.html
but i tried this exposure calculator and it seems correct that using ASA 400, hand holding the camera is possible albeit with a shutter speed of 1/20..
http://www.robert-barrett.com/photo/exposure_calculator.html
Last edited:
Are you comparing the exposure with that of a digital SLR? This won't account for the entire discrepancy, but I've read that the ISO ratings stated on some of the DSLRs don't always match up to film, eg ISO 100 on the DSLR may actually be closer to ISO 125 on film. Actually, I've recently started using film, and I've noticed the same thing too, that I don't need as high an ISO rating to get the same exposure. One explanation is that the metering option used on my film camera is different from that of my DSLR, but I'm not so sure that the answer is as simple as that, because I get good exposures either way.
What lens were you using on the DSLR? What aperture you shot on the Yashica? If both shot wide open, then it is understandable in the case of kit lens. Kit lens usually have max aperture around f3.5 to f4 while the Yashica is f1.7. If you used ISO1600 on DSLR at f4, now in yashica is ISO400 at f2.
Another possible reason is the meter. This is because the camera meter is designed for use with mercury batteries (5.6V). If you used alkaline batteries it is (6V), which will give slightly inaccurate result.
Another possible reason is the meter. This is because the camera meter is designed for use with mercury batteries (5.6V). If you used alkaline batteries it is (6V), which will give slightly inaccurate result.
Last edited:
Rangefinder_fan
Senior Member
This is the Electro 35 right?
Its supposed to be using a 5.6v battery, not the 1.35v that sweat100 mentioned.
But, I've seen at least one site that says that anything up to 6.5v will be fine.
In anycase, I'd suggest using Silver Oxide batteries instead of Alkaline. The discharge of Silver Oxide batteries not as erratic as Alkaline batteries.
cheers
rf
Its supposed to be using a 5.6v battery, not the 1.35v that sweat100 mentioned.
But, I've seen at least one site that says that anything up to 6.5v will be fine.
In anycase, I'd suggest using Silver Oxide batteries instead of Alkaline. The discharge of Silver Oxide batteries not as erratic as Alkaline batteries.
cheers
rf
Hi rf, thanks for the correction. I have corrected the post. Keeps having impression all mercury batteries operate on 1.35v. Perhaps this one is stacked in series?
Hi,
Thanks for the replies,
basically what i meant was ISO 400 at F1.8 on my nikon seems to require a longer shutter speed(tripod needed) than the yashica at F1.7 (i presume no lights mean shutter is good enough to hand hold)
my batteries are alkaline, that could be the reason too..
anyway... will wait till the roll is developed... until then thanks again.
Thanks for the replies,
basically what i meant was ISO 400 at F1.8 on my nikon seems to require a longer shutter speed(tripod needed) than the yashica at F1.7 (i presume no lights mean shutter is good enough to hand hold)
my batteries are alkaline, that could be the reason too..
anyway... will wait till the roll is developed... until then thanks again.
Last edited:
Seems like the camera likes to overexpose instead of the underexposure which I was worried about. Other than that, very flare prone lens. Still sharp if done correctly 
Using Superia 400 here. Landscapes dun seem right but the portraits all look good.
Btw is there a good lab who can do good scans? The lab i am using don't seem to be doing it right.
Using Superia 400 here. Landscapes dun seem right but the portraits all look good.
Btw is there a good lab who can do good scans? The lab i am using don't seem to be doing it right.
Last edited:
If you want to know if you camera is over or underexposing, don't shoot negs, shoot slides. Negs have a lot of latitude, coupled with the ability to salvage a lot during the scanning process it's better to shoot a few slides and then figure out how your camera meters.
For eg. my FE2 and Bessa R3A meter very differently. While the R3A seems to overcompensate when there's a highlight in the scene, the FE2 undercompensates.
As for scans, I've resorted to scanning negs myself. Painful but decent results.
For eg. my FE2 and Bessa R3A meter very differently. While the R3A seems to overcompensate when there's a highlight in the scene, the FE2 undercompensates.
As for scans, I've resorted to scanning negs myself. Painful but decent results.
Stoned
Senior Member
Ok, I'm using a cheap flatbed(Canoscan 5200F), which even scans 120 format too. IMO, the results are alright for web viewing but if you want to print anything, it's really quite insufficient. You get large files of very poor quality.
It would be better to get a dedicated film scanner since most of them go for a song nowadays.
- Status
Similar threads
