JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
I have to admit that I have never owned a RF. I've had several SLR and DSLRs, along with the requisite P&S cameras that have their place for snapshots. But after struggling with the complexity, bulk and obnoxious shutter slap of SLR designs, I'm eager to check out the RF world. As I'm a big fan of quality versus features, and always believe you get what you pay for, Leicas are my first choice. And it seems that the venerable M3 is highly touted around here.
I have no doubt that the M3 is a fine piece of machinery. But my one qualm about it is the lack of internal metering. All of my previous cameras have incorporated that feature, and I have no experience with carrying around a handheld meter.
So I'm wondering how much of a 'hassle' is it to do the metering yourself. Does the process slow you down and make your work more deliberate, thus better?
Or are lighting conditions fairly consistent that you aren't metering constantly? Most of my subject matter is outdoor details. Not necessarily street scenes, but static compositions that don't require haste to capture.
To make a long story short (too late, I know), I've been planning to save up for a M6 classic... but I keep seeing M3 in every post here. And I could afford the M3 plus glass a lot sooner. Not having either available to handle, I'm waffling. Comments are strongly encouraged.
I have no doubt that the M3 is a fine piece of machinery. But my one qualm about it is the lack of internal metering. All of my previous cameras have incorporated that feature, and I have no experience with carrying around a handheld meter.
So I'm wondering how much of a 'hassle' is it to do the metering yourself. Does the process slow you down and make your work more deliberate, thus better?
Or are lighting conditions fairly consistent that you aren't metering constantly? Most of my subject matter is outdoor details. Not necessarily street scenes, but static compositions that don't require haste to capture.
To make a long story short (too late, I know), I've been planning to save up for a M6 classic... but I keep seeing M3 in every post here. And I could afford the M3 plus glass a lot sooner. Not having either available to handle, I'm waffling. Comments are strongly encouraged.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
To me... metering is a hassle. That's why I went the M6TTL route. It was, too, the advice I got in this very same forum when I asked my question what seems eons ago.
That doesn't mean it's impossible. I can't remember who was it who used to take a reflective reading on his own clothes before leaving the house, and then make any necessary adjustments as lighting changed.
Nah... go for metered cameras. At least, that's the advice I can give you.
Besides, if you wear glasses, the old Leicas will wreak havoc on them: the eyerings are metal, and they scratch lenses. Sure, you can get a little ring to place around it but... It's up to you, pal!
That doesn't mean it's impossible. I can't remember who was it who used to take a reflective reading on his own clothes before leaving the house, and then make any necessary adjustments as lighting changed.
Nah... go for metered cameras. At least, that's the advice I can give you.
Besides, if you wear glasses, the old Leicas will wreak havoc on them: the eyerings are metal, and they scratch lenses. Sure, you can get a little ring to place around it but... It's up to you, pal!
back alley
IMAGES
years ago i had a leica m4-p and sold it because i could not wrap my head around not having an internal meter.
of course i went to that set up directly from having a slr outfit complete with motor drive so the need to use a handheld meter just seemed downright slow & stupid.
today, i have the bessa r if i want/need a built in but my primary camera is the canon p, with no meter.
i'm not sure what what has changed (or who) but i don't miss the built in and quite enjoy the hand held. in fact i think it's quicker with the hand held and i'm learning way more about light this way also.
i take a few readings and then the rest is up to me as to how i modify my settings dependent on changes in light etc.
it's not tough at all and my meters were all cheap. i use the pilot/pilot 2 mter from gossen, bought all 3 used and the most expensive one was 30 bucks.
hth
joe
of course i went to that set up directly from having a slr outfit complete with motor drive so the need to use a handheld meter just seemed downright slow & stupid.
today, i have the bessa r if i want/need a built in but my primary camera is the canon p, with no meter.
i'm not sure what what has changed (or who) but i don't miss the built in and quite enjoy the hand held. in fact i think it's quicker with the hand held and i'm learning way more about light this way also.
i take a few readings and then the rest is up to me as to how i modify my settings dependent on changes in light etc.
it's not tough at all and my meters were all cheap. i use the pilot/pilot 2 mter from gossen, bought all 3 used and the most expensive one was 30 bucks.
hth
joe
R
RML
Guest
Re: can you M3 fanatics tell me....
I too find it troublesome. I went from SLR to RF (Bessa L and R)and that did slow me down, make me think more about the settings and made my photography much better. My M2, like the M3, has no internal meter either. It's a nice camera to work with but I'll never get used to using a handheld meter. It's no fun having to take of my gloves at -20 to -35 C just to meter once again. I'm seriously looking at the CV Lightmeter 2 to stick on the M2, but right now can't spare the money.
Here in Holland things are grey and cloudy so there's little variation in lighting conditions. But when I'm in Mongolia I really need to meter constantly. The sky is clear and the sun shines bright, with some clouds passing over, for some 300 days a year. The difference between shadowed areas and brightly sunlit areas can be 5 stops or more. I prefer shooting my Bessa R and Leitz Minolta CL in Mongolia, simply because they both have accurate internal meters. I use the M2 with longer lenses (85mm and 135mm) as the M's base length is much longer and thus the RF is more accurate in daunting focusing situations.
Any Leica M is worth considering, and the M3 and M2 perhaps more than others. But if you want an internal meter you have start think M5 or M6TTL (or M7 if you dare).
If you go the M3/M2 way consider buying a CV Light meter as well. It'll add $150 to the total bill but at least you'll have a (clip-on) meter.
JoeFriday said:
I too find it troublesome. I went from SLR to RF (Bessa L and R)and that did slow me down, make me think more about the settings and made my photography much better. My M2, like the M3, has no internal meter either. It's a nice camera to work with but I'll never get used to using a handheld meter. It's no fun having to take of my gloves at -20 to -35 C just to meter once again. I'm seriously looking at the CV Lightmeter 2 to stick on the M2, but right now can't spare the money.
Here in Holland things are grey and cloudy so there's little variation in lighting conditions. But when I'm in Mongolia I really need to meter constantly. The sky is clear and the sun shines bright, with some clouds passing over, for some 300 days a year. The difference between shadowed areas and brightly sunlit areas can be 5 stops or more. I prefer shooting my Bessa R and Leitz Minolta CL in Mongolia, simply because they both have accurate internal meters. I use the M2 with longer lenses (85mm and 135mm) as the M's base length is much longer and thus the RF is more accurate in daunting focusing situations.
Any Leica M is worth considering, and the M3 and M2 perhaps more than others. But if you want an internal meter you have start think M5 or M6TTL (or M7 if you dare).
If you go the M3/M2 way consider buying a CV Light meter as well. It'll add $150 to the total bill but at least you'll have a (clip-on) meter.
I find myself always worrying what the meter is saying, looking for those little LED lights to make the arrows disappear, or re-fiddle with the settings to make sure the lights say what I want them too. I have been walking around with a Kiev and feeling very liberated from the meter. I take a reading every once in a while, set my speed and aperture, and have at it. I think, I will face more issues if I get into contrasty indoor situations, window light in a dim room, where taking a good reading will blow the candid nature of the photograph, but I will cross that bridge when it comes.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Remember that exposure depends primarily on the light falling on the subject. You only need to change exposure when the lighting conditions change. That means that often, ONE meter reading can be used for hours.
The surest way to get a reliable reading is to use an incident light meter. This measures the light that falls on (or is "incident" to) the subject. Since this measures the light, not the subject, it can't be fooled by an unusually light or dark subject, or by light coming from an unusual direction, e.g. backlighting. Incident metering is universally used in feature film production, where exposure errors could cost millions of dollars.
The only problem with incident metering is that an incident meter is difficult to build into an automatic camera! The reason is that to get a good reading, you need to hold the meter at the subject (or in the same light as the subject) and point it at the camera... whereas the camera, of course, is pointed the opposite direction. This is why camera manufacturers have gone to huge efforts to build complex "evaluative" metering systems that don't actually work as well as a simple incident reading!
I'll give you an example I encounter frequently: I'm at the front of a room lit by overhead fixtures and lined with windows and mirrors, photographing the activities of people within the room. If I'm using an in-camera meter, I get a different exposure reading in every direction -- depending on whether the background includes a window, a mirror, a light fixture, a reflection, or whatever.
Yet, the light level on the people I'm photographing remains constant, so the correct exposure never changes! One incident reading in the center of the room gives me a reading that I can continue to use for hours. If I relied on an in-camera reading, I'd be having to override it for almost every shot!
So, if you invest in an incident meter and learn to use it, you'll get the most accurate meter readings possible; you won't need to change exposure settings very often; and you'll be able to use your meter with an M3 or any other camera you might buy in the future that offers manual settings.
Once you learn the principles, you'll find that this actually makes photography easier, not harder!
Of course, a reflected-light reading is sometimes useful: when you can't get into the same light as is falling on the subject, for example, or when you want to be able to predict where light or dark subject tones will fall in the final exposure.
That's why so many people like the combination type meters that can read both reflected and incident light. You can get compact, inexpensive models that read about a 40-degree reflected-light angle, or more expensive ones that read a 1-degree spot, as well as incident light.
Which one is best for you is a deeper subject than I can cover here. The key point is that a good meter is a lifetime investment that will improve your photography with any type of camera you use, and it will make it easier to get good results in difficult lighting conditions than relying on an in-camera meter.
So, budget for a meter along with your M3 outfit, and you should be a happy guy!
The surest way to get a reliable reading is to use an incident light meter. This measures the light that falls on (or is "incident" to) the subject. Since this measures the light, not the subject, it can't be fooled by an unusually light or dark subject, or by light coming from an unusual direction, e.g. backlighting. Incident metering is universally used in feature film production, where exposure errors could cost millions of dollars.
The only problem with incident metering is that an incident meter is difficult to build into an automatic camera! The reason is that to get a good reading, you need to hold the meter at the subject (or in the same light as the subject) and point it at the camera... whereas the camera, of course, is pointed the opposite direction. This is why camera manufacturers have gone to huge efforts to build complex "evaluative" metering systems that don't actually work as well as a simple incident reading!
I'll give you an example I encounter frequently: I'm at the front of a room lit by overhead fixtures and lined with windows and mirrors, photographing the activities of people within the room. If I'm using an in-camera meter, I get a different exposure reading in every direction -- depending on whether the background includes a window, a mirror, a light fixture, a reflection, or whatever.
Yet, the light level on the people I'm photographing remains constant, so the correct exposure never changes! One incident reading in the center of the room gives me a reading that I can continue to use for hours. If I relied on an in-camera reading, I'd be having to override it for almost every shot!
So, if you invest in an incident meter and learn to use it, you'll get the most accurate meter readings possible; you won't need to change exposure settings very often; and you'll be able to use your meter with an M3 or any other camera you might buy in the future that offers manual settings.
Once you learn the principles, you'll find that this actually makes photography easier, not harder!
Of course, a reflected-light reading is sometimes useful: when you can't get into the same light as is falling on the subject, for example, or when you want to be able to predict where light or dark subject tones will fall in the final exposure.
That's why so many people like the combination type meters that can read both reflected and incident light. You can get compact, inexpensive models that read about a 40-degree reflected-light angle, or more expensive ones that read a 1-degree spot, as well as incident light.
Which one is best for you is a deeper subject than I can cover here. The key point is that a good meter is a lifetime investment that will improve your photography with any type of camera you use, and it will make it easier to get good results in difficult lighting conditions than relying on an in-camera meter.
So, budget for a meter along with your M3 outfit, and you should be a happy guy!
JohnM
Well-known
I prefer a built-in meter. It's faster and one less thing I have to worry about. I do have a handheld meter, (Digisix), and I do use it, but mostly it's just backup in case I'm in a situation where I think the internal meter might be fooled.
I actually admire guys like Joe who can take a couple of readings and just have it in their heads to know how to compensate based on those few quick readings. It is quite a skill to have acquired, in my opinion.
I don't have it, though, so I'm tied to my meters.
I actually admire guys like Joe who can take a couple of readings and just have it in their heads to know how to compensate based on those few quick readings. It is quite a skill to have acquired, in my opinion.
I don't have it, though, so I'm tied to my meters.
P
pshinkaw
Guest
I recommend:
The Hand Exposure Meter Book
by Gerald Hisrchfeld, Bob Shell, Martin S. Silverman, Jim Zuckerman
It costs about $20 and is the best single source I've seen for learning how to use a hand held exposure meter.
-Paul
The Hand Exposure Meter Book
by Gerald Hisrchfeld, Bob Shell, Martin S. Silverman, Jim Zuckerman
It costs about $20 and is the best single source I've seen for learning how to use a hand held exposure meter.
-Paul
W
wlewisiii
Guest
My primary cameras all have no meter. But I do find that I really need one as my eyes just aren't calibrated fine enough to handle Sunny-16 when indoors. I've used a number of handheld meters and they aren't difficult to get used to using. It is an added step, but when using older cameras I have tended to be more deliberate about the process anyway (when using 120 film and getting only 12 6x6 shots per roll, that's not a bad thing.)
Wanting to speed things up a bit while still using the older cameras I ordered a VC Meter II from Cameraquest (along with a 35/2.5 but that's a different obsession
) that I'll be able to put in the accessory shoe of these cameras. I hope it will be a big help with my Kiev especially. So that's another option for you to consider. You can find more information here: http://www.cameraquest.com/voivcmet2.htm
William
Wanting to speed things up a bit while still using the older cameras I ordered a VC Meter II from Cameraquest (along with a 35/2.5 but that's a different obsession
) that I'll be able to put in the accessory shoe of these cameras. I hope it will be a big help with my Kiev especially. So that's another option for you to consider. You can find more information here: http://www.cameraquest.com/voivcmet2.htmWilliam
JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
all good comments.. much of them backing up my 'expectations'
I also find myself checking the internal meters constantly.. maybe switching to a meterless system, as rover mentioned, would break me of that habit, and get me to concentrate more on composition.. but my shots are generally very 'contrasty' by nature (I often shoot rolls of silhouettes and shadows), so I think I'll end up metering regardless
one quick tangent... the only difference between the M6 and the M6TTL is that the TTL version incorporates metering for the flash, right? the classic M6 still has internal metering, but you have to manually compensate for flash.. and I doubt I'd be using a flash with it at any given point
I also find myself checking the internal meters constantly.. maybe switching to a meterless system, as rover mentioned, would break me of that habit, and get me to concentrate more on composition.. but my shots are generally very 'contrasty' by nature (I often shoot rolls of silhouettes and shadows), so I think I'll end up metering regardless
one quick tangent... the only difference between the M6 and the M6TTL is that the TTL version incorporates metering for the flash, right? the classic M6 still has internal metering, but you have to manually compensate for flash.. and I doubt I'd be using a flash with it at any given point
back alley
IMAGES
for you guys wanting the cv meter because it clips on...the pilot/pilot 2 has a foot that fits on a shoe. (if you can find one) i have one and it fits very nicely on the p. and they are way cheaper than the vc.
as far as adjusting settings in my head, believe me it's a skill that can be developed with time & practice. if you have a handheld meter try carrying it around with you (w/o the camera) and take readings and look at the light. then reverse the process, look at the light and guesstimate the reading, then look at the meter. i think you'd be surprised at how quick you get it 'right'
joe
as far as adjusting settings in my head, believe me it's a skill that can be developed with time & practice. if you have a handheld meter try carrying it around with you (w/o the camera) and take readings and look at the light. then reverse the process, look at the light and guesstimate the reading, then look at the meter. i think you'd be surprised at how quick you get it 'right'
joe
peter_n
Veteran
Joe I'm with Francisco. I came to the RF world from SLRland, but even with my F3 I used a meter (Minolta Auto IIIF) and I still have it, plus I have a "modern" Weston Master V, and I'm pretty good at sunny 16.
But I bought an M6 because I felt it was the most cost effective and practical Leica body to buy. I didn't even consider an M3 because it doesn't have a 35mm frameline! (See this oldish thread on photo.net). At the time I was buying, about a year and a half ago, the M3 prices were higher than they are now, but you often still have to figure in the price of a CLA and add that to the M3 price.
I think the M3s appeal to people who are either collectors or users who have a collector bent. I wanted a camera that was mechanical but modern and I ended up with an M6ttl that I'm very happy with. I appreciate the construction of the older cameras but I want a modern one if I can get one. I have handled an M6, MP, M7 and an M2 and to be honest, can't tell any difference in the way they feel. A Leica is a Leica. Get an M6, you won't regret it.
The M6 comes in two guises, the "classic" and the "TTL". Flash handling isn't the only difference, another (and major) difference is that the speed dial works in opposite directions on the two cameras. If you are interested in modern bodies get the M6ttl because the M7 shutter dial has the same rotation. However if you hanker after the older Leicas get an M6 classic because the dial on that camera rotates in the same direction as all the Leicas before it.
Whatever, get an M6. Remain steadfast! The siren call of an M3 is actually a howl of despair - I cannot mount the lens this whole camera line was designed for...
But I bought an M6 because I felt it was the most cost effective and practical Leica body to buy. I didn't even consider an M3 because it doesn't have a 35mm frameline! (See this oldish thread on photo.net). At the time I was buying, about a year and a half ago, the M3 prices were higher than they are now, but you often still have to figure in the price of a CLA and add that to the M3 price.
I think the M3s appeal to people who are either collectors or users who have a collector bent. I wanted a camera that was mechanical but modern and I ended up with an M6ttl that I'm very happy with. I appreciate the construction of the older cameras but I want a modern one if I can get one. I have handled an M6, MP, M7 and an M2 and to be honest, can't tell any difference in the way they feel. A Leica is a Leica. Get an M6, you won't regret it.
The M6 comes in two guises, the "classic" and the "TTL". Flash handling isn't the only difference, another (and major) difference is that the speed dial works in opposite directions on the two cameras. If you are interested in modern bodies get the M6ttl because the M7 shutter dial has the same rotation. However if you hanker after the older Leicas get an M6 classic because the dial on that camera rotates in the same direction as all the Leicas before it.
Whatever, get an M6. Remain steadfast! The siren call of an M3 is actually a howl of despair - I cannot mount the lens this whole camera line was designed for...
R
RML
Guest
Joe, I've read about other people's experiences with the plastic foot of the pilot (or was it the digisix?) saying that it becomes brittle when cold and will then break easily. That would be a serious consideration for me as I often encounter deep freeze temps in Mongolia (winter lasts from early October til late April).
What are your experiences with (extremely) low temps and the pilot or digisix?
What are your experiences with (extremely) low temps and the pilot or digisix?
peter_n
Veteran
Of course I forgot to mention that the meter in my M6 is just unbelievably accurate. I've tested it against my Minolta Auto IIIF and Megatron Euro-Master and if you use contrast filters like I do it is wonderful to have a meter that "sees" very accurately through the lens+filter. Another plus for the M6!!
R
RML
Guest
Peter, the early M6's are going to need CLA too real soon. They're getting on in age them Leicas.... Makes me wonder where I've been all these years. I could have been a Leica owner soooo long already but I've only recently caught the virus (first the RF virus, then the Leica virus).... *sigh*
doubs43
Well-known
A couple of points to remember:
A handheld meter as a back-up to the internal meter is never a bad idea in the event of failure of the internal meter.
Internal meters all have a "pattern" to their measuring field. There's spot, bottom center weighed, center weighed etc. Knowing HOW your on-board meter measures light is important. Using it correctly can also be more tricky than using a handheld meter. Internal meters can be fooled in certain situations and they don't free the camera operator from using at least a minimum of brain cells for best results.
Yesterday I took some pictures with my Kiev-60 6x4.5 SLR with a TTL meter in the pentaprism finder. I also used my Gossen Digisix as a back-up. The Gossen indicated one f-stop more open than the TTL meter. So, I took exposures as indicated by both meters plus an extra exposure half way between. I'll develope the film tonight and then I'll see which reading gives the better results.
My advice would be to get and carry a handheld meter just in case your camera's meter goes kaput.
Walker
A handheld meter as a back-up to the internal meter is never a bad idea in the event of failure of the internal meter.
Internal meters all have a "pattern" to their measuring field. There's spot, bottom center weighed, center weighed etc. Knowing HOW your on-board meter measures light is important. Using it correctly can also be more tricky than using a handheld meter. Internal meters can be fooled in certain situations and they don't free the camera operator from using at least a minimum of brain cells for best results.
Yesterday I took some pictures with my Kiev-60 6x4.5 SLR with a TTL meter in the pentaprism finder. I also used my Gossen Digisix as a back-up. The Gossen indicated one f-stop more open than the TTL meter. So, I took exposures as indicated by both meters plus an extra exposure half way between. I'll develope the film tonight and then I'll see which reading gives the better results.
My advice would be to get and carry a handheld meter just in case your camera's meter goes kaput.
Walker
peter_n
Veteran
Me too Remy - I'm in the same boat. I knew about them a long time ago but I couldn't afford them then. You are right about M6s needing CLAs soon. I have heard that the early ones are showing problems in the flexible circuit boards that are between the meter & battery. Mine will be 10 years old in 2008 and I am planning on sending it to DAG then.RML said:Peter, the early M6's are going to need CLA too real soon. They're getting on in age them Leicas.... Makes me wonder where I've been all these years. I could have been a Leica owner soooo long already but I've only recently caught the virus (first the RF virus, then the Leica virus).... *sigh*
GeneW
Veteran
The M3 has a lot of devotees here but I shot with one for a couple of weeks and found it wasn't my cup of tea. Beautifully constructed and all that but I prefer a more modern cam for the kind of money one of these cost.
Gene
Gene
I use a handheld meter, and I can usually guess within 1/2 stop of it under most conditions. But I have used 35mm since I was 11 years old in 1969.
For the M3: You can get clip on meters which couple with the shutter speed dial. The MC: Selenium, MR: CDS; and MR4: more sensitive CDS. Meters can also be used on the shoe mount. If you shoot slide film, you need "tight" metering, within 1/2 stop. Print film is very forgiving. All light meters average the scene to some degree. Spot meters sometimes do not average enough of the scene and you must take multiple readings to determine exposure. After a while you realize that your subject is not getting proper exposure because the meter "averaged" out the scene. I like to take a meter reading of the overall scene and use that as a baseline, usually deviating up or down 2 F-Stops depending on the light hitting my subject compared with the background.
For the M3: You can get clip on meters which couple with the shutter speed dial. The MC: Selenium, MR: CDS; and MR4: more sensitive CDS. Meters can also be used on the shoe mount. If you shoot slide film, you need "tight" metering, within 1/2 stop. Print film is very forgiving. All light meters average the scene to some degree. Spot meters sometimes do not average enough of the scene and you must take multiple readings to determine exposure. After a while you realize that your subject is not getting proper exposure because the meter "averaged" out the scene. I like to take a meter reading of the overall scene and use that as a baseline, usually deviating up or down 2 F-Stops depending on the light hitting my subject compared with the background.
R
RML
Guest
Walker, good advice! As a matter of fact I do always bring my handheld meter for "emergencies".
Last time in Mongolia I shot some with the M2 and the handheld meter, while at the same time also shooting with the Bessa R and CL. There were a lot of shots wit the M2 that were incorrectly exposed. Though I did meter properly the meter seemed confused by the contrast that I encounter in Mongolia. The shots from both the Bessa and the CL were, however, correctly exposed. This could be due to the fact that I'm aware of their habits and know when the meter indicates a value that will give me the exposure that I want, while I'm less skilled with the handheld meter and know less about its habits. Practise would probably make perfect but I'm not motivated at all to learn.
Last time in Mongolia I shot some with the M2 and the handheld meter, while at the same time also shooting with the Bessa R and CL. There were a lot of shots wit the M2 that were incorrectly exposed. Though I did meter properly the meter seemed confused by the contrast that I encounter in Mongolia. The shots from both the Bessa and the CL were, however, correctly exposed. This could be due to the fact that I'm aware of their habits and know when the meter indicates a value that will give me the exposure that I want, while I'm less skilled with the handheld meter and know less about its habits. Practise would probably make perfect but I'm not motivated at all to learn.