Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Konica RF / Zeiss Ikon ZM Leica Mount Rangefinders

Konica RF / Zeiss Ikon ZM Leica Mount Rangefinders Konica and Zeiss versions of the AE electronic film rangefinder camera

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Zeiss Ikon Meter
Old 04-30-2012   #1
anerjee
Registered User
 
anerjee is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Singapore
Posts: 280
Zeiss Ikon Meter

I'm beginning to notice that my 1.5 yr old ZI is consistently under-exposing by a bit.

While I can fix this by adding +1 to the EV compensation dial, I'd like to know if others have faced a similar problem. Is it because of the batteries (I use super cheap chinese LR44)? Any other possible reasons?
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-01-2012   #2
jpskenn
Registered User
 
jpskenn's Avatar
 
jpskenn is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Kanazawa, JAPAN
Posts: 27
No noticeable ender-exposure on my two ZI (Silver + Black), and never had such a problem.
Also when low battery, no problem.

I don’t have any good idea, but I’m thinking of lens problem.
Using only one lens or not?
(I’m using 2/50 planar ZM and 2.8/28 biogon ZM.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-01-2012   #3
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 3,819
Never had a problem on my ZI, got to be worth trying some new batteries before considering a service.

Also, a wide angle lens can sometimes meter on more of the sky than you'd probably like, leading to under exposure. If you're using 28mm or wider, that could easily be the problem.
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-01-2012   #4
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
 
whitecat's Avatar
 
whitecat is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,362
Never had a problem. What type of film are you using? Development?
__________________
My Gallery



Zeiss Ikon Zm, Olympus Trip, Rolleiflex FX, Yashica Electro 35, Nikon 35 TI, Nikon 28 TI, Widelux F7, Contax TVS III, Zeiss Ikon 35, Minox, Olympus 35 EE3, Konica AA 35, Minox 35 GT, Canonet QL17, and many more....
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-01-2012   #5
alexandru_voicu
Registered User
 
alexandru_voicu is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 111
Hi,

I also think my ZI meter tends to underexpose a bit (one third of a stop or so), but I can't say for sure, yet. I have to make more tests.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-01-2012   #6
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 3,819
I read somewhere, not sure where, that the ZI meter is calibrated for accurate exposure on slide film. That means that on some negative film it may appear to under expose, as we are so used to over exposing negative film.
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-01-2012   #7
kossi008
Photon Counter
 
kossi008's Avatar
 
kossi008 is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dresden, Germany
Age: 53
Posts: 927
Hard to say really, but are you sure it's the camera and not you? I'm not trying to insult here, but when I got the Zeiss Ikon first, I under-exposed a lot. Later found out that it was due to my not being acquainted with the slightly asymmetric metering pattern, so I was holding it the "wrong way" for portrait orientation.

Here's the link to the old thread, for what it's worth:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...+ikon+metering
__________________
Photon Counter
My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-01-2012   #8
Moriturii
Unsui
 
Moriturii is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 657
Something something battery? When the voltage goes down you usually get wrong exposure. Try a proper kind batteries.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-01-2012   #9
bensyverson
Registered User
 
bensyverson is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: chicago
Posts: 629
In backlit or flare-inducing scenarios, I've had some very underexposed Ikon shots. I think it has to do with a ghost from the flare hitting the metering area. I suppose that's one downside of through-the-lens metering.
__________________
me on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-01-2012   #10
135format
Registered User
 
135format is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 186
Ever heard of a personal film speed? Part of determining that is your metering technique. If it's consistently a 1/3 of a stop underexposed then adjust film speed by 1/3 stop less for that type of film. Problem solved.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-01-2012   #11
alexandru_voicu
Registered User
 
alexandru_voicu is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by 135format View Post
Ever heard of a personal film speed? Part of determining that is your metering technique. If it's consistently a 1/3 of a stop underexposed then adjust film speed by 1/3 stop less for that type of film. Problem solved.
I guess your message is a follow up to mine (as I was the only one talking about a third of a stop). I guess *I've "heard* of personal film speed, that's why I was saying I need to make more tests.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-02-2012   #12
EdwardKaraa
Registered User
 
EdwardKaraa's Avatar
 
EdwardKaraa is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bangkok
Age: 50
Posts: 703
The metering of the Zeiss Ikon is extremely accurate. Maybe too accurate. It is calibrated for 18% grey, as it should be. However, it just happens that nowadays we are more likely to face rather light environments, light walls, light clothing, not so many people are dressed in medium grey suits anymore. So in order to get the right exposure, one has to estimate the light reflectance of the scene, and adjust the meter reading accordingly. White walls are +2, Caucasian skin is +1, dark suit on dark background -1 2/3.

Most film cameras I have used are adjusted to give a +1 reading. Nikon, Canon, Olympus...etc. The only exception is Contax, and Leica.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-02-2012   #13
anerjee
Registered User
 
anerjee is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Singapore
Posts: 280
My experience is from C41, E6 and B&W -- and across a range of situations.

I'll try to measure things carefully this weekend, but I suspect this could be a battery issue. If not, I'll just dial in +1 and move on.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2012   #14
Joakim Målare
Registered User
 
Joakim Målare is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 147
I have a different question that could use the same thread title...

I'm using filters; yellow, orange, red, green and some neutrals. For some reason, the ZI shows a two stop difference with the red filter on and off, but my Sekonic lightmeter measures three stops.

The red filter is just an example - the others are also "wrong" with the ZI meter...

Anyone else noticed the same?
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2012   #15
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 75
Posts: 3,771
I am reading an implicit assumption in many of the replies that a light meter will tell you the "correct" exposure. It just is not so. The meter will tell you the overall luminance of a scene. It will usually get you close enough so that the latitude of negative film will give you a good print. But you, the user, must make the final determination if the exposure indicated by the light meter serves your needs or not.

Similarly, different meters react differently to scenes with an emphasis of one color as resulting from use of a colored filter. As well, a scene with a lot of blue sky will indicate a different factor with a red filter than one with a preponderance of red.

Bottom line: you need to use you brain just a little bit. This is not complex stuff but there is more than simply reading a dial.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2012   #16
EdwardKaraa
Registered User
 
EdwardKaraa's Avatar
 
EdwardKaraa is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bangkok
Age: 50
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim Målare View Post
I have a different question that could use the same thread title...

I'm using filters; yellow, orange, red, green and some neutrals. For some reason, the ZI shows a two stop difference with the red filter on and off, but my Sekonic lightmeter measures three stops.

The red filter is just an example - the others are also "wrong" with the ZI meter...

Anyone else noticed the same?

What does the filter coefficient read?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-02-2012   #17
Joakim Målare
Registered User
 
Joakim Målare is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardKaraa View Post
What does the filter coefficient read?
It doesn't say on the colored filters :/

Tiffen 8 Yellow 2 (Wratten #8 I suppose) would be a factor 2, so that's a one stop difference. The ZI does that "properly" while the Sekonic says 1/2 a stop.

Tiffen Orange 21 is factor 3 according to Wikipedia, so what's that.. 1 1/2 stop difference? The Sekonic reads that and the ZI too, sort of.

Hansa G53 - have not found any info on that yet. It's 1 1/2 on the Sekonic and two on the ZI. It might be 1 1/2 on the ZI too, I'm not extremely scientific when it comes to testing.

The red though is a Milo 25a, which is a filter factor 5. Where between 2 and 3 stops that would fall is beyond me, but the ZI says two, while the Sekonic says 3. That's a one stop difference between the two...

These are all reflective readings of the same white-ish background.

I don't really care about the different readings from different meters when it's about half a stop, I just didn't know colour would matter the way it seems to.

My confusement remains, when it put the red filter on my M3, should I add two or three stops?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-02-2012   #18
Moriturii
Unsui
 
Moriturii is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim Målare View Post
My confusement remains, when it put the red filter on my M3, should I add two or three stops?
You should download the .pdf from the film you are using (TriX for example), and see how much exposure compensation you should use on that specific film then run your own test and see what you come up with.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4017/f4017.pdf

Page 3, upper right corner.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-02-2012   #19
Araakii
Registered User
 
Araakii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 507
I actually feel that my Ikon gives better metering than my M7 does.
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-02-2012   #20
EdwardKaraa
Registered User
 
EdwardKaraa's Avatar
 
EdwardKaraa is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bangkok
Age: 50
Posts: 703
Joakim, your ZI meter seems more accurate. Factor 5 is 2 1/4 stops not 3.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-02-2012   #21
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 67
Posts: 12,451
I always thought it was my job to decide on the exposure, all the meter ever does is measure the light.

If you simply follow it without applying any reason to the reading I'd not be surprised if the results were variable.
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-02-2012   #22
Joakim Målare
Registered User
 
Joakim Målare is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriturii View Post
You should download the .pdf from the film you are using (TriX for example), and see how much exposure compensation you should use on that specific film then run your own test and see what you come up with.
Right, that makes sense. Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardKaraa View Post
Joakim, your ZI meter seems more accurate. Factor 5 is 2 1/4 stops not 3.
Cool. Do you know the math? I understand that the factor is 2 ^ stops, but can't figure out how to do the reverse equation
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-02-2012   #23
EdwardKaraa
Registered User
 
EdwardKaraa's Avatar
 
EdwardKaraa is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bangkok
Age: 50
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim Målare View Post

Cool. Do you know the math? I understand that the factor is 2 ^ stops, but can't figure out how to do the reverse equation
Pretty simple really.

1x, 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x... etc correspond to 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 f/stops.

I don't know the formula but it's easy to interpolate the in between values.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-02-2012   #24
Joakim Målare
Registered User
 
Joakim Målare is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardKaraa View Post
Pretty simple really.

1x, 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x... etc correspond to 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 f/stops.

I don't know the formula but it's easy to interpolate the in between values.
That's only valid for linear series. Which is why a factor of five is more like 2.322-something stops (trial and error on the calculator ). Too bad I forgot most of the math I did in school... All sorts of weird stuff, but what we don't understand is easy to forget.

Who cares really, 2-2.5 stops works for me

Thanks Edward.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-04-2012   #25
kossi008
Photon Counter
 
kossi008's Avatar
 
kossi008 is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dresden, Germany
Age: 53
Posts: 927
The math is pretty easy:
The number of stops n is the logarithm to the base of two of the filter factor N:
n = log2(N)

Most calculators don't have log to the base of 2, so you can use log to the base of 10 by:
log2(x) = log10(x)/log10(2) = 3.32 * log10(x)

So, a factor of 5 is log2(5) = 2.32 (or 2 1/3) stops.

But if you are in doubt of your meter readings, wouldn't it be smarter (faster) just to do some test exposures instead of doing math and searching for internet links?
__________________
Photon Counter
My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-04-2012   #26
Joakim Målare
Registered User
 
Joakim Målare is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by kossi008 View Post
But if you are in doubt of your meter readings, wouldn't it be smarter (faster) just to do some test exposures instead of doing math and searching for internet links?
Definitely yes. Sometimes it's just fun to dive into a little theory.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 17:19.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.