Hey everyone
I was recently asked a question i couldnt answer...."Would you recommend getting an M6, or say an M3 or M4 and a handheld or hot shoe meter like the new CV II?" I didnt know what to say, never used an RF with a handheld meter or even a mounted one. The friend that asked is a street shooter, who needs to be quick on her feet, so now I want to know as well? If youre out street shooting, and need to meter and adjust settings quickly as possible, is one better than the other? Not necessarily the body, but the metering? Shes planning on an M body, and asked me because she knows she can get a nice user M3 or M4 and accessories for the same or cheaper than just an M6 body.
Anyone have some input on this? I know some of you use mounted meters on your M's.....
Thanks in advance
Bryan
I was recently asked a question i couldnt answer...."Would you recommend getting an M6, or say an M3 or M4 and a handheld or hot shoe meter like the new CV II?" I didnt know what to say, never used an RF with a handheld meter or even a mounted one. The friend that asked is a street shooter, who needs to be quick on her feet, so now I want to know as well? If youre out street shooting, and need to meter and adjust settings quickly as possible, is one better than the other? Not necessarily the body, but the metering? Shes planning on an M body, and asked me because she knows she can get a nice user M3 or M4 and accessories for the same or cheaper than just an M6 body.
Anyone have some input on this? I know some of you use mounted meters on your M's.....
Thanks in advance
Bryan
NL2377
*scratches head*
TTL is probably the best option stated above... AE even better if you really need the speed... The VII is pretty accurate from what Ive heard, and would take a lot less time then, say, a handheld...
I shoot w/ a handheld, although I have quite a few cameras in which i use it for, so I've become pretty efficient w/ it.
I shoot w/ a handheld, although I have quite a few cameras in which i use it for, so I've become pretty efficient w/ it.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
I was suprised to find that the hand-held meter option ultimately turned out to be faster and smoother for me. I used an M6 for a while, but found I was missing shots, watching the meter diode lights rather than the action. So I sold the M6 and switched back to my M3. Now, I enter a lighting situation, take a few readings, and get a sense of the light- highlights, shadows, and overall readings. Then I put the meter away and shoot, watching only the action, making adjustments on the fly as needed, judged by my eye. After a short time doing this you get to know what the light is like and what settings you will need. Anyone can learn this if they try- it's just practice. My negatives are all pretty consistently well exposed these days. It does take some practice, but it becomes second nature quickly, and in the end is faster, simpler, and less prone to being fooled by weird light than any in-camera meter.
Thanks guys, I really appreciate the input, Im sure as a lot of people know when considering their first M, theres those small things we think about, and may not know "real world" answers to, just another reason I love RFF! I can trust the input because its user input, or Ill hunt ya down!
Thanks again
Bryan
Thanks again
Bryan
In my view, the best justification for a meter in a camera is AE. But that involves an unfortunate metering compromise because it necessarily meters light reflected from the subject, while I believe the incident metering method is far more useful. Unfortunatrly, I'm really fond of AE! The good side of the built-in meter is that (usually) you're not forced to use it, so you can still resort to the handy incident meter. 
I agree heartily with drewbarb, too. Further, there are other justifications for TTL meters such as automatically dealing with filter factors, oddball optics and microscopes/telescopes, zoom lenses that vary in aperture as they're zoomed, macro shots (both for metering a tiny subject but also correcting for bellows extension effect), and surely other good reasons mostly relating to SLRs.
I agree heartily with drewbarb, too. Further, there are other justifications for TTL meters such as automatically dealing with filter factors, oddball optics and microscopes/telescopes, zoom lenses that vary in aperture as they're zoomed, macro shots (both for metering a tiny subject but also correcting for bellows extension effect), and surely other good reasons mostly relating to SLRs.
ncd_photo
Nikon Fanatic
I had a fear when I bought my M2 - it was a lot of money for a camera without a light meter. I looked at the M6 but couldn't justify double the price to get a camera With a meter.
So far I've shot about 6 rolls with the M2 all using a variation of sunny 16 and have had 4 exposures come out wrong - and that was due to the aperture ring being knocked in a busy street and I didn't notice!
It doesn't take long to suss exposure readings in your head and it really frees you up to concentrate on taking the shot. A built in or handheld meter will tell you the EV of whatever you point it at, so you need to know where to point it in the first place! Whereas sunny 16 combined with the lattitude of neg film will give you nearly spot on exposures each time!
Go for the M2-M4 and learn the trade. You can always pick up a small handheld weston for the time's when you're not sure.
So far I've shot about 6 rolls with the M2 all using a variation of sunny 16 and have had 4 exposures come out wrong - and that was due to the aperture ring being knocked in a busy street and I didn't notice!
It doesn't take long to suss exposure readings in your head and it really frees you up to concentrate on taking the shot. A built in or handheld meter will tell you the EV of whatever you point it at, so you need to know where to point it in the first place! Whereas sunny 16 combined with the lattitude of neg film will give you nearly spot on exposures each time!
Go for the M2-M4 and learn the trade. You can always pick up a small handheld weston for the time's when you're not sure.
erik515
Leica M6
Incident readings work great from Handheld
Incident readings work great from Handheld
I use both and M6 TTL and an M3 for street work. I often think I am shooting better with the M3 because I am less distracted by the constant metering. I use a Gossen Digisix which fits nicely in my shirt pocket. It is easy to get a sense of the overall light with a few incident readings and then adjust a stop or two from there depending of what my eye perceives.
Incident readings work great from Handheld
I use both and M6 TTL and an M3 for street work. I often think I am shooting better with the M3 because I am less distracted by the constant metering. I use a Gossen Digisix which fits nicely in my shirt pocket. It is easy to get a sense of the overall light with a few incident readings and then adjust a stop or two from there depending of what my eye perceives.
Oh Two
Established
What erik515 says: Amen
I find that if you have strangers as subjects pointing a camera at them from the face is distracting and puts them off. A nice big analog dial gives one perspective as to exposure options and can be aimed with out distraction. For street shooting the hand held is always faster.
I find that if you have strangers as subjects pointing a camera at them from the face is distracting and puts them off. A nice big analog dial gives one perspective as to exposure options and can be aimed with out distraction. For street shooting the hand held is always faster.
thomasw_
Well-known
ncd_photo said:
well said, nick. this applies to barnack bodies as well. learning to be an available-light shooter frees you to think about how you will work with what is there. finem respice. thomas
peter_n
Veteran
I also agree completley with what Nick said above. Having said that, using a camera with aperture priority, like a Bessa R3a or a Leica M7, can be really handy at times.