No meter?

[phatnev]

I have a M2 right now, and along with my 35mm and 50mm lenses I have a VC II Meter, now Im pondering the purchase of a second body and for the life of me I cant figure out if its worth it to buy a M6. How long did it take you guys to know your light and stop using meters? Id love to pair my M2 with a M4 but I cant decide if I need a meter.

 

[rxmd]

I still need a meter. I don't need one outside (usually), but inside I do, and in tricky lighting situations I find a meter to be better than my brain.

However, you've got a meter already. The question is if you need one built into your camera. That's mainly a question of convenience. You might consider getting the M4 as well as a good external meter that supports incident metering (like a Gossen Digiflash or something like that).

 

[ferider]

Save the money and buy the M4*
You might consider the M4P for the 28mm framelines.

Best,

Roland.

 

[Photog9001]

if possible, go without meter. one less thing to operate. now if only i could apply this thought to my overloaded photobags with body and second body, second and third etc lenses.....

 

[robbo]

Phatnev, I was in exactly the same situation until last week - using an M4-P plus a hand-held meter. I then part-exchanged it for an M6TTL. What a difference it's made to my photography! I can now think of composition and 'the right moment' without the distraction of checking light readings. The LEDs in the viewfinder solve that problem.

 

[payasam]

Having most things visible together in the same place does make for speed.

 

[vrgard]

Well, in my experience, in kinda works both ways. I find that I'm faster shooting with an external meter because I don't waste time chasing the diodes in the viewfinder as I sometimes do with my M6. Of course, that also means that when I'm shooting with my M4 I sometimes underexpose because I'm using my best guess and/or extrapolating from some earlier handheld meter reading. So, each has its advantages.

-Randy

 

[alexz]

I still carry my handheld incident meter to heck my exp. guessing intuition, but the more I do that the more my intuition gets developed in the proper direction. After few months of such experience, I can guess the exposure with up to astop tolerance in most outdoors situation, though I still underexpose at a times...
I'm aimed to develop the skills to be ready for a full meterless street experience with my M3...just apply sunny 16 rule and learn to compensate by your brain occasionally checking and correcting your guess by your handheld meter. Experience is your best friend.

Having said that, I certainly do not dismiss my M6 meter. I foudn one to be very precise and reliable and when I'm in the mood of M6 - I used to rely on its metering but of course, with necessary compensation (by means of zone system evaluation). Works very good, even for Sensia slides...

 

[szekiat]

having a built in meter is brilliant, having AE is a godsend! I never figured why anyone would want to shoot without AE. It takes the idea of metering one step further. Set the aperture for the DOF u want and let the computer do the rest. With enough experience, u will know a reasonable aperture to set to. Use the money and get a zeiss ikon or if u can afford the luxury, an M7.

 

[alexz]

AE can be indeed convenient, but is far from to be a total solution IMHO. Talking about in-camera metering, I personally perfer a spot metering capability for an unobtrussive and concious shooting. That way I know exactly where I meter from and how to compensate. I'm in charge, not the camera. That approach will also allow to develop you judgement skills necessary for kind of zone evaluation.
Havng said that, perhaps for travel-like snapping away I'd consider AE to be a major deal indeed...

 

[drewbarb]

szekiat and vrgard have it right, IMO. I don't like meter readouts in my finder, but I would deal with it to get aperture priority. Other than that, what's the point? A good hand-held incident meter is much more accurate than an averaging reflective meter in camera- and it's faster for me. I take a few readings, establish in my head the light levels for highlight and shadow, then put the meter away and shoot. I can adjust much faster depending upon what I'm seeing, and concentrate on my subject- not meter diodes, which I find distracting and generally not helpful.

With a bit of experience, hand-held metering is more accurate and becomes faster than in-camera meter in manual mode. Now, aperture priority metering modes are nice, too, and having that feature is the only way I would be interested in using an in-camera meter.

 

[phatnev]

The last thing I want is an M7, an MP is a different story. Thanks for the help, if anyone has anything else to add feel free

 

[shadowfox]

AE can easily be fooled by a specular light source in the background, causing an underexposed frame. I can't count how many frames I have lost from using AE only or AE capable cameras.

Your eyes and brain, however, as long as you stay sane, and with a bit of practice, will always have the feel on what the correct exposure settings are within reason. Why? because your eyes and brain "sees" the subject, so you can calculate the correct exposure for the subject's light condition, regardless the ambience or background. Kinda like an organic incident meter.

I err on overexposing because color negatives can captures more details in that direction. I probably would rely more on a handheld meter for slides.

But, other than that, I can totally shoot outdoor and in any reasonably lit indoors without a meter. To me it's more fun that way especially with vintage cameras such as the Leica M.

Also, to me, a meter inside an expensive camera is just invitation for another thing to break. 😀

 

[Doug]

I respect those dedicated to spot meters, and have one myself, but I find an incident meter the ultimate in assessing relevant exposure. But I don't feel particularly handicapped if I forget to bring a meter when heading out the door with a meterless camera like my M2.

OTOH, I do like AE when used intelligently, and figure AE is the main justification for a camera to have a built-in meter.

 

[rogue_designer]

I have a gossen digisix in my pocket for when the light is hard to figure out, or indoors. But otherwise, I know my film, and my camera, and just go by what I can see. Go meterless.

 

[Photon42]

The answer to this very much depends on your style. For me, the M6 with it's built-in meter is a nice compromise between a meterless camera and an M7. No-one stops you from using an M6 without batteries or ignoring the meter. I tend to think, that RFs are made for quick operation -- thus a light meter seems the logical consequence to me.
Maybe the M6 metering attracts me so much, since it reminds me on the camera I've used most in my live: a Nikon FM2.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

From the way you worded your question the answer is obvious you want the M4. Then buy it. You already own a meter. Even with a meter how often do you need to read it, especially at the same location and light conditions?

 

[pvdhaar]

Even though I'm using my M4 without a meter all the time, I get occasional pangs of doubt about whether I nailed the exposure right.

But everytime I get the prints back, I'm amazed at how dependable the sunny-16 rule is. And of course it has to be, or otherwise the photo albums of our (grand)parents wouldn't have had any pictures in them.

 

[richard_l]

Get an M6, and you may realize that the advantage of a built-in meter is a phantom. One tends to chase the lights in the VF instead of concentrating on composition, and all-too-often you miss the shot while fumbling around with the controls. In any case most people end up getting an exposure no better that than of an AE camera (see below).

The M7 seems to avoid this problem, but if you are conscientious about exposure, you waste time finding the right scenario before activatiing the AE lock (then recomposing). Otherwise you compromise exposure accuracy by basing it on whatever happens to be in the VF when you shoot (which I call the Monte Carlo method). (AE works fairly well most of the time, thanks to the wide latitude of modern film, but it still takes the human eye to determine optimum exposure.)

Richard

 

[pvdhaar]

I very much agree with Richard..

Riding the exposure by keeping the meter needle in the centre all the time draws your attention away from the perfect moment. What's more, it means you're measuring subject reflectance, and not the light itself. And AE is basically an automated way to muck up things faster.

If you think about it a bit further, this whole metering a scene thing is even plain weird!

Using the sunny-16 rule may feel like we're doing something by hand that may be more precisely performed by an electronic device. But in every text book on exposure using a built in meter, there's always a section about how you need to adjust the metered value for when the subject is very dark or very light. They'll show examples with exposure compensation and tell you that it's up to you to experiment how much compensation you need under what circumstances.

Conclusion: measuring a scene is even more like guesswork than a sunny-16 rule that's based on the very constant light output of a physical phenomenon that's been working day after day in the same way for the last 5 billion years..