RF Metering

[bluedust]

From my experiance from digital SLR's I have learned you can not trust the metering provided by the camera.

What is the story with rangefinders? In partictular how good is the inbuilt light meter for the Bessa R? I guess this is an issue for me because with digital you could always get the expsure right by checking after you take the image; but I would rather get it right the first time instead of being lazy. Now that I am starting to work in film should I invest in a good light meter?

The lightmeter GIII QL17 is a bit suspect because I don't have the correct batteries for it but I am sure using a light meter should solve that problem. How reliable are built in light meters designed in the 70's

 

[Doug]

I think a good light meter forms a good base-point for correct exposure, though the readings of any meter are most useful when filtered through the experience and judgment of the user. 🙂 But that one good trusted meter can be the standard to which you compare camera meters, and therefore worthwhile I think. Besides, I tend to prefer incident readings, most convenient with a handheld meter.

 

[pvdhaar]

I don't think there's anything wrong with lightmeter design from the 70s. They're calibrated to 18% reflective metering, just like the most modern meters available today. What may be a problem though is that the meters degrade over the decades (especially Selenium meters deteriorate when exposed to light), and that batteries that have a specific voltage (as you've already found out) are no longer widely available. And what the user needs to be aware of is that the meters of the 70s are centreweighted, and not multi-segment matrix whatever..

That said, a handheld meter is a splendid tool. It's just so easy to just point at this and that and take readings, think about the light and then set the camera to what you need and click away. You'll find that the light actually changes a lot less than the camera built in meters make you believe. These invite you to measure the light before every shot, while I've found that a "measure once, snap a hundred" approach gives more consistent exposure results. They are less affected by the reflective properties of every individual subject..

 

[the_other_dirk]

I found this web page pretty interesting. It's a method for times when (a) you don't have a light meter at hand, (b) you can't rely on it for some reason, (c) you have to work fast and you don't have time to take many readings, or (d) you're just too lazy to take your light meter out of your bag 😛 .

Maybe this method also produces more consistent negatives in terms of exposure, as Peter's method does (and that can't be a bad thing).

dirk

 

[Fred]

Hi BD,

I try not to repeat what has been said already. The biggest differences that you'll find are the differences between a DSLR multi segment matrix metering pattern and that of the rather 'old fashioned' center weighted type. To be honest my experience with the multi segment meters has been quite good when using transparency film (the least tollerant to poor exposure). the problem was knowing when they would fail. With a simple center weighted meter you will learn the limits quite quickly. If it's very bright in the middle, add more exposure, if it's very dark in the middle (or backlit) the opposite applies. The amount of compensation will depend on the film and the scene. I've found that I get very few exposure duds from a CW meter by applying a spot of common sense. Less duds than the multi whatsits. With DSLRs you have the added problem of white balance to through readings off.

 

[FrankS]

That FredParker website is excellent. You may want to read through this thread as well: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11120&highlight=light+metering

 

[dmr]

The one idea I picked up years ago, I think it was from a classmate who was discovering photography about the time I was, is to think of the exposure the meter says as a suggestion only.

The 2 rangefinders I have (Canon GIII and Mamiya SD) seem to do a very good job of suggesting. 🙂 They both agree within 1/2 stop to the Pentax K1000 under most circumstances.

From what I can tell, the rangefinders do a very rough average of the light hitting the camera from the front, and yes, they can be fooled by bright light just outside the field of view and such.

Real Photographers {ducking, running, hiding} should usually be able to tell when the suggestion is a bad one and adjust accordingly. 🙂 🙂 🙂

 

[schmoozit]

What I don't think I saw in any of the replies yet, is that if you are going to be shooting negative film, you'll be fine with the GIII's meter 90% of the time, if not more. I shoot black and white neg film mostly, but do shoot slides at times as well. Even with the Tri-X and crazy lattitude that it has, I still want a handheld meter for incident readings.

The reason for this is, one, to help me learn about proper exposure and force myself to understand it more. Two, I hope to virtually eliminate exposure errors so as to know what a good and proper exposure even looks like. I've been playing with exposure lately, trying to learn it, and have been pleasantly surprised at how easy it is to make a dramatic improvement in my negs with a very little work and understanding. I want to further my understanding and nail it down solid, however, thus my shopping list contains a meter right near the top of it.

 

[JoeFriday]

schmoozit just stated what I was about to say, but I'll chime in anyway

the Canonet has a very good meter.. I've always had excellent results trusting mine.. but then, I'm using a battery adapter that steps it down to the correct voltage.. but still, print film has such a wide latitude that I doubt you'll have any problems

the big exception is when you're shooting a backlit subject or have a very contrasty scene.. I don't use the zone system, but it's a good thing to understand for those occasional situations

 

[ErnestoJL]

My first experience with meters was with a Vitomatuc IIb with a selenium cell which was "average" and limited. Later a Miranda Sensomat told me what a center weighted meter can do even whe you do not think too much about exposure.
Actually I´m allways carrying a handheld meter (Luna Pro) for those dificult situations where personal judgement won´t be quite easy and the built in meter will surely be wrong.
Another thing I do with every camera I buy is to check for the real area covered by the meter with a simple method:
I place the camera in a special jig (an aluminum profile with a 1/4" screw), on a tripod, and with a single 10 mm white 17000 mcd LED, I move it in front of the lens at 500 mm from side to side and top to bottom of the area in the VF. Then I note where the meter has it´s peak response. I also check the meter against the Luna Pro to be sure how reliable or not is the measurement obtained. I found that many suposed to be average meters in fact are center weighed ones with up to 1-2 stops from center to edge. All this gave me some knowledge on when can I trust the built in meter readings.
Ernesto