Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/09/17

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] OT: Minox 35
From: "Justin Low" <justin@justinlow.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:52:28 +0800

My meter underexposes between 1 and 2 stops... Well, at least I can use
1600 film now. :D

Yes, the images are good, here are two:
http://www.justinlow.com/paw.php?year=2003&week=35
http://www.justinlow.com/paw.php?year=2003&week=29

It's quite susceptible to flare, however.

Sincerely,

Justin Low
justin@justinlow.com 



- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of
Afterswift@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:00 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] OT: Minox 35



In a message dated 9/17/03 3:28:13 AM, justin@justinlow.com writes:

<< The only problem I have is an inaccurate meter; aside from that, it's
a
lovely camera. >>

Yep, the meter can be a problem. But as Minox points out in their
manual, 
we're supposed to make tests to figure out the correct ISO for a
particular film. 
For example, I found that setting the meter to ISO 160 for ISO 200 film 
solves the meter difference. What is remarkable about the Minox 35 is
that the 
quality of images we get is so good despite the diamond-shaped aperture
blade 
arrangement. 

br 
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html




- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com> (Re: [Leica] OT: Minox 35)