Internal vs external meter useage

[digitaldave]

Hopefully this will all make sense, I've had several attempts at articulating my question, and deleted them all and started again!

I've been considering getting an interchangeable lens RF, either an old M or a new Bessa. The problem for me is that an old M that I can afford (probably M2) won't have a light meter, but I'm a bit wary of going that route, as I've never used a camera without a meter before. Obviously I'd have to get an external light meter (at least until I can master setting exposure bye eye). So the first part of my question is, does anyone that uses an external meter find it inconvenient, especially compared to using a similar camera with a built in meter?

The second part relates to cameras with built in meters. When shooting my old SLR with a built in meter, I would tend to set the aperture, meter, and then set the appropriate shutter speed. However, I find this a bit awkward, as it means that I need to release the shutter button after metering in order to adjust the shutter speed dial, and this means that I lose the meter reading which is a pain as I don't use that camera often, so usually end up going the wrong way thus having to start all over again :bang:. Is there an easy way to do this without releasing the shutter button? I believe that the Bessas lock the exposure read out for a few seconds, does that help?

I think the overall objective I'm after is to find out if an older camera and external meter would be significantly more awkward to use than one with a built in meter.

Hope that all makes sense 🙂.

Thanks,

Dave.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

you get used to using a handheld meter, it's very easy and most of the time you'll get better results with an incident meter vs. reflected or in camera metering.

I use a VC meter II on my non metered bodies which clips into the hotshoe. Look here: http://cameraquest.com/voivcmet2.htm

other meters work good too but the VC meter is tiny and looks like it's made for the camera.

good luck!
Todd

 

[telenous]

Believe it or not, a handheld meter may actually be more convenient than an in-built meter like many mechanical cameras have. A camera with an in-built meter requires that you raise the camera to the eye to take a reading. In my opinion this makes your photographing more obvious, when you may wish it to be the exact opposite. Bear also in mind that B&W is very forgiving so even if you do not do exactly what your handheld meter says you will still be fine. As a rule of thumb you may take a few readings of the back of your hand, the pavement etc., average them out and then start shooting until the light changes. Simple and it always works.

 

[FrankS]

Using a handheld meter or the shoe mounted CVmeterII, surely isn't any more cumbersome than the process you described using your slr's!

 

[dazedgonebye]

I've not really mastered using a handheld meter in the way I was comfortable with a camera meter.
I need to remember that the handheld provides a very broad average and that I need to adjust for the specific scene features that are most important to me.
For some reason, I tend to underexpose.

 

[LazyHammock]

I use a handheld meter regularly for MF work, I have a Sekonic L-308 - it is very lightweight and fits easily in a pocket or weighs very little around the neck. I sometimes find myself prefering this meter to the M6's built-in meter. As noted earlier the incident type metering can potentially be more accurate than the in-camera meter.
Nick

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

Just set it and forget it!!

I use a hand held meter that most would consider large, a Minolta IVf. I usually wear it on my belt and take it out to measure the highlight and shadow values of the scene, memorize those values, then put the meter away and photograph. Light in most scenes does not change rapidly. Exceptions exist of course, like the first or last minutes of the day, stage scenes, the inside of a museum and then walking outside into bright sunshine, etc.

I find a hand held meter no more difficult to carry than a cell phone. When I started photography 40 years ago no one I knew carried a cell phone, and today almost every one does.

Wayne

 

[richard_l]

It seems as if most people use their meters as if they were shooting narrow latitude slide film. I.e., they readjust exposure for every shot. For this, a built-in meter is obviously the most convenient. However, there seems to be no optimum exposure for C-41 print film. I usually rate it at 2/3 to 1/2 the recommended ISO, and allow about a 1 stop margin for overexposure and the same for underexposure. The main thing to avoid is excessive underexposure, which plays heck with contrast (and color saturation with color film). Thus I am able to get by with an occasional meter reading when there is a significant change in lighting. I am getting more accurate exposures than I ever did when I readjusted for every shot (or used an autoexposure camera).

Richard

 

[lns]

Everyone's different. But last month I got my first meterless camera ever, an M3 to use as a backup body. It hasn't been very long, but I actually prefer using my backup M3 with a little Digisix to using my main camera, a much-loved M6 with built-in meter.

I often have to adjust the M6's meter readings anyway, or at least be careful about what parts of the scene I meter. It doesn't take any more time with the M3 (you do tend to "set it and forget it," as stated above). I think it turns out to be more accurate. And it's definitely a better learning experience. I wish I had gotten a meterless camera 25 years ago when I first started.

To be fair, I do find the built-in M6 meter easier and faster when shooting inside, especially at night. But I expect the more practice I get at that, the easier it will become.

Before you decide, maybe you could find or borrow both a camera with manual exposure and a handheld meter. Expose a few rolls of film using only the handheld meter to see if you like the process and the results.

 

[raid]

I am used to an external spotmeter for slide film photography and for difficult light conditions in general. Else, the in-camera meter is fine.

Raid

 

[photogdave]

I agree totally. I was used to shooting my M4 with the Digisix before I got my M6. That stupid built-in meter is driving me crazy and I keep threatening to remove the batteries!
Set it and forget it!

 

[matt fury]

When I was shooting with my Retina II, I hated carrying my Soligor spotmeter. Sure, the meter worked great, but it was like 2x as big as the camera, totally killing any pocketability I had. Consequently, I carried my SLR with a built in meter.

Now I've got an MR4 to go with my M4, and I don't mind it at all. I usually don't even mount the meter, just take a couple of readings at the beginning and set it & mostly forget it. I even carry it in my pocket along with my Retina! I still use the Soligor when I have a place to put it, as I can't deny how damn useful it is.

 

[tkluck]

They'll get my Luna Pro when they take it from my cold dead hands!
I've learned more about light and exposure sence I aquired a shelf full of cranky antigue RF cameras than I ever thought I didn't know.
Battery died in my OM1 and I didn't notice for half a roll.

I'd be hell on wheels if I had any talent....

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

I second Todd's suggestion of the VCII meter. It is very low profile and fits nicely with the camera body.

Handheld meters such as the sekonic or gossen (308s or luna pro digital) are also great. You will be surprised at how easy it is to use an external meter once you've practiced a bit. Measure once and set your exposure, you're done. No need to remeasure again unless the light dramatically changes. I usually meter open sun, and then measure shade. When the subject steps into one or the other, I already know what the settings are.

Trust me, it is easy once you practice a bit 🙂

 

[steve garza]

Meterless body is definitely the way to go. You will learn more about exposure and become far more confident after using the external meter. It's very easy to shoot outdoors w/o a meter anyway. Sunny F16 is really all that's needed. My Sekonic 558 is large, but comes w/ a belt case for easy access. It is highly accurate and seems calibrated perfectly to Sunny F16. It's so simple to take a few readings and adjust occasionally as lighting changes. The 558 combines a spot (indespensable for indoor shooting), and incident function and has many wonderful functions, i.e., averaging several readings, memorizing up to 5-6 readings, aperture and shutter priority as well as the ability to read from 2 different pre-set ISO speeds!!! It's pricey, but well worth the money. It lets you use a battery-less camera w/ no annoying lights in the Viewfinder. I say the handheld meter is far more versatile and will become 2nd nature to your shooting experience. BTW, I also purchased an M2 as a backup and now prefer it to the M6TTL which I've decided to sell.

 

[vrgard]

I shoot with an M6 and have never found the meter lights in the viewfinder to be the least bit distracting or annoying.

I also shoot with an M3 and various handheld meters including a Gossen Luna Pro and a Weston Master V.

Speed of correct exposure, for me, is still with the M6 and built in meter.

However, the problem with using the built in meter, in my view, is that it's too easy to just change aperture or speed settings until the meter lights are balanced and then take the shot. But in so doing it's too easy to not pay attention to the aperture and speed combination. That means getting the shot but not learning from the experience. Which means continued reliance on the meter lights rather than learning light conditions versus camera settings. Okay, this is a bit of an oversimplification since one can certainly pay attention to the settings and consciously work towards learning light conditions, exposure settings and resulting film images. However, it's too easy to ignore all that and just rely on the meter.

So, in my view an in-camera meter and a meterless camera each have their advantages. Which leaves the answer to the question reducing to issues of personal preference and/or objective. Do you want quick readings and/or camera setting? Do you want everything in a single package? Do you want to learn lighting conditions and camera settings?

-Randy

 

[richard_l]

Aiming the camera at the subject and then adjusting the built-in meter so that the lights in the finder (or whatever) are balanced can result in over- or underexposure, depending on whether the subject is darker or lighter than middle grey. Thanks to the wide latitude of modern film, this may not be disastrous, but a naive use of a built-in meter will not necessarily give the optimum exposure one may desire. Likewise for autoexposure systems. There are times when common sense needs to override automation.

Richard

 

[digitaldave]

Thanks for the replies everyone 🙂.

The more I think about it, the more I think I'll end up going the route of the unmetered body with an external meter, as I think this will help me learn more about exposure. Randy's comments about chasing the lights ring a bell 😉.

Now, off to do some more research in to meters...

Thanks,

Dave.

 

[raid]

Having an external meter also solved the problem of obsolete batteries for meters in old cameras and it saves you money.

Raid

 

[planetjoe]

Except for my trusty Canon T90, all of my (35mm film) cameras are meterless mechanical bodies. And I have a lot of them. I also carry a Minolta IVf, and I love it - like Wayne, I tend to meter only whenever the light changes, and shoot away in the meantime. I shoot a lot of chromes, too, and I've been managing pretty well.

I'm also a strong devotee of Sunny 16, of course.

That said, I'm interested in a small clip-on meter, for those outings that have more of a "snapshot" feel to them - I like the idea of a single package in my hands (i.e., meter-and-all). I've become interested in the MR-4 for my M4 body for this reason. But I tend not to place a premium on built-in meters at all.

In fact, during a recent shoot, carrying meterless RFs and my T90, it was the T90 (in full auto mode) that produced the only images that had "iffy" exposure. That could also have been my mistake, of course, but that just goes to show that I'm more comfortable using the Exposure Meter In My Head.

I like incident metering, though - this makes the Digisix a great option, since it has the "sliding" lumisphere. Excellent little machine.


Cheers,
--joe.