Hand-held and clip-on meter?

D

dwr

Senile User
Local time
9:02 PM
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
20
During my on-going search for an economical and good rangefinder I came to realize that many cameras don't have a built-in meter, and I just can't help wondering what the reason (or reasons) might be, is it better to use an external meter - like hand-held or clip-on - or they simply made them this way to make some more money?

And I was also curious as to which one would you prefer, a built-in or external meter? And why? I saw some nice offers (Voigtlander Vitessa, Konica II, etc) in where I live, but they don't have meters built-in and I don't know if it's worthy buying a meter for it, or would I be better off getting one with meter instead.
 
Many cameras made without built-in meters are still excellent instruments. I know people who have cameras with meters built in who use separate incident light meters also.
 
The cameras without built in meters are either old ones like the Leica M2, M3, and M4 that were made before built in meters became common in 35mm cameras, or medium format cameras. Medium format film cameras were made in non-metered models until very recently because they were designed as studio cameras and built in meters don't work with studio strobe systems, so it was a waste of money for a meter to be included in a studio camera.
 
I don't use meters, but if I do, I prefer built-in ones (as long as they're not too old.) Clip on meters slow my work process down, so I don't use them.

The VCII was the best clip on meter I ever used. Best $200 I ever spent.
 
Meters used to be a lot bigger, less sensitive, and more expensive. Look at Contax II/III and their successors.
Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
I have not found it difficult to carry an external meter like the Gossen Luna Pro or Luna Pro SBC, or the smaller Sekonic L28c2. They hang around the neck easily, or in the case of the Sekonic, even fit in a pocket.

Meters like the old Sekonic Auto Leader are even smaller. It is hard to find them in working order, but not impossible. Then learn how to use them based on your idea of a properly exposed photo.

I always use a meter, built in or external, unless I have forgotten to bring one, or don't have time. If the camera has a working built in meter, that is usually more convenient. Others don't, and quite successfully. So I guess your choice.
 
I think it's down to money, isn't it? An M3 or M2 might cost you $600 or $700, and is as well-made, some say better, than an M6, which sells here typically for $1050.

So you pay $600 and have to carry around another item, which costs $100 or less.

OF course, the more relevant question is why Leica didn't add a internal meter to their cameras 10 years earlier!
 
I find onboard meters distracting anyway, M2 finder is about perfect for taking pictures the match needle finders that followed, and even the F3’s LCD isn’t too bad … but all the flashing lights, buzzers and LEDs that followed those seem designed to distract from the task in hand.
 
Paul, the first Leica to come with a meter built in was the M5: and that is a fine camera even by today's standards. Stewart will approve of it, I'm sure. My guess is that Leitz did not want to take a risk with photo-electric meters that would not last too long and would lose accuracy over time.
 
I find the built-in meter of my M7 very helpful since it allows me to use the camera in AE and not to worry to much about correct exposure (within certain limits). Other than this I prefer the meterless cameras and any kind of external meter, recently the MR-4 is my favorite for the M4-P.
 
payasam said:
Paul, the first Leica to come with a meter built in was the M5: and that is a fine camera even by today's standards. Stewart will approve of it, I'm sure. My guess is that Leitz did not want to take a risk with photo-electric meters that would not last too long and would lose accuracy over time.
Click to expand...

I agree that the M5 has a fine meter; I love the similar meter on my CL, which I reckon is far superior to that on the M6. But without going into the old debate about the m5 once more, there was a big price to pay in terms of increased bulk, and of course it was a little late on the scene, 6 or 7 years after the Pentax Spotmatic featured TTL metering.
 
You can always do it this way.

4174991394_9472e2cc02.jpg
 
not built-in, but built-on, and integrated :))

not built-in, but built-on, and integrated :))

not to forget the leicameter MR, with a FOV similar to a 90mm lens.

or the sekonic L-208, which either mounts in a camera hot shoe (without integration), or hangs around your neck. pretty handy, very small and no excuse for not having it along on your next outing.

greetings from hamburg

rick
 
Last edited:
payasam said:
Paul, the first Leica to come with a meter built in was the M5: and that is a fine camera even by today's standards. Stewart will approve of it, I'm sure. My guess is that Leitz did not want to take a risk with photo-electric meters that would not last too long and would lose accuracy over time.
Click to expand...

My problem with all onboard meters is they divide my attention, just at the point when all ones’ attention should be on the aesthetics of the picture there’s that distraction of technical information popping up in the finder.

I think, for me anyway, I get better pictures by concentrating on one thing at once
 
Best Meter

Best Meter

Hello:

A meter is not essential: it has been said that the best meter is the one in your head. I do, however, use a Gossen Digisix to establish light levels and go from there, avoiding frequent metering. I do this even with a M6 which does have an internal meter. I also admit to using accessory finders on the same camera. :)

yours
FPJ
 
Thanks for the replies gents. I've looked at some of the meters mentioned - Voigtlander VCII, Gossen Digisix, Seconic L-208 - only the latter two have both reflective and incident metering. Just read the rather negative review on Digisix on Dante Stella's site, any similar experiences?

payasam's guess sounds quite reasonable, what others think about that? Also that distraction mentioned by Sparrow is an interesting point, I'll have to see for myself to see whether that bothers me or not. Haven't decided whether I'll get a meter or not, because, like Paul said, it's down to money.
 
Last edited:
dwr said:
Thanks for the replies gents. I've looked at some of the meters mentioned - Voigtlander VCII, Gossen Digisix, Seconic L-208 - only the latter two have both reflective and incident metering. Just read the rather negative review on Digisix on Dante Stella's site, any similar experiences?

payasam's guess sounds quite reasonable, what others think about that? Also that distraction mentioned by Sparrow is an interesting point, I'll have to see for myself to see whether that bothers me or not. Haven't decided whether I'll get a meter or not, because, like Paul said, it's down to money.
Click to expand...

I've had no bad experiences with the DigiSix. I do find battery life to be a bit short. My second most used meter is a Weston Euromaster - no batteries and a very informative readout dial.

yours
FPJ
 
My experience w/ clip on meters has not been good and I prefer an in-camera meter most and a hand held meter second. Having to point the camera to meter, then bring it back down to see the readings and set the camera, then bring it back up to my eye to shoot is too slow. And I don't like the way they perch on top of the camera and ruin the clean appearance. I suppose I could just point the camera while holding it at my waist, but may as well use a hand held meter at that point. Lately I have only been shooting my TLR and MF folders so it's been all hand held metering.

My meter of choice is a very light, simple and small Sekonic L-188 that cost about $40. Really fast to read, and so light you don't even know it's in your pocket. The only downside is it has a very wide metering area and you have to understand where it's reading. Haven't put a battery in it in over a year.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom