Should I Need A Compact Meter On The Camera Shoe Mount ?

R

ruben

Guest
While I have already got good venues to repair my Pilots, and Mr George from QLM is not among them (further info at the PS) for whatever reason, I am starting to question the convenience, or better said the utility of mounting a compact meter on the camera shoe.

Notice the special way in which I have phrased myself. I am not questioning the utility of a compact meter in general, but the utility of using it on top of the camera.

Why ? because unless you are going to photograph a rather far and wide subject, and so far tripods are excluded, your mounted shoe meter will never be pointed accurately towards the subject at the time of making the exposure. You will never accurately see what part of the subject the meter is metering. It will be more or less.

There is another important implication for the handheld meters, that escaped my mind untill I took my time to read several times the Weston manual explanations about exposure.

We all agree that if we are looking for an incident ("white dome") exposure reading - we will have it witout any problems, and it is my opinion that for sunlight days, outdoors, and color film, nothing will be better.

But if we are using a not so forgiving BW film, and want a "general reflective reading" we will be doing a poor job, unless we meter at an extreme close range, for the very simple reason that like with the shoe mounted meter we are not looking at what exactly our meter is pointed to. And now I am refering to the biger and pocketable meters too, like the Westons, the digital Sekonics L---, etc. Excluded from the penalty are all cameras with TTL metering.

These meters will give us accurate incident readings, and accurate reflective readings of still subjects we can almost touch them with our arm. But if we are looking for accurate reflective readings of farther subjects, it is my opinion we will need spot meters, not mostly for metering a small area of a subject, but for revealing to our minds what exactly have we metered.

Now a single word about Tri-X. True it is a very forgiving film like HP5, but no less true that with very accurate exposure and processing - the results will not be just acceptable but formidable.

So whenever I use a meterless camera, I think the best for me will be a spot-reflective meter with the incident white dome too. I own one. Besides, an additional reflective meter for still subjects, releasing me from the need to actually look through the spot meter viewfinder, will be great.

I will gladly accept opinions to the contrary, and specially on behalf of mounting a compact meter on top of the camera, as Mr George may be answering my email any day and I will have to take a decision very soon.

Cheers,
Ruben

PS
Now, for the folks looking to fix their selenium meters this is what I got:

a) Gossen Germany will undertake Gossen meters repair, including selenium ones. But they accept bank transfer money only.

b) After asking Megtron for a Brittish fixing shop they may recommend who may be buying from them selenium cells, they politely sent me to Gossen Germany.

c) Several UK fixing shops at eBay UK, are not answering at all.

d) The email of Mr George will be published by me upon the day he answers me and approves it.

e) Mark Hama is "ready to try". I trust him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The question is not about compact shoe meters at all, but about the accuracy we may benefit from if we mount them on the camera top shoe, while handholding the camera

I have never used the VC, but if you can with one hand sustain the camera framed towards the subject while you are looking through the viewfinder, and with the other hand manipulate the meter to get the reading, and then lower the camera to read the meter exposure - then this would be great.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I never liked the idea of a shoe mounted meter. Changes the whole ergonomics of the camera, looks awful and seems unnecessary and downright hopeless for an incident reading. The VCII looks very compact and neat but I don't think I would mount it. I have used a hand-held Gossen since I was 17, after learning on my mother's old Zeiss with in-camera meter. I use incident readings most of the time and recently acquired the Gosssen DigiPro F which has a swivel head, so you can hold the meter up with dome towards you while you read the LCD also facing you. That is great. The modern Silicon blue cells are very quick, much quicker than my CdS Gossen Sixtar. I use this with the M2 of course but also with my M6, never having quite learned to trust the reflective readings of the built in meter, good though that meter certainly is.
 
Hi Ruben,
I get your point about pointing ;) in the same direction but other than using a handheld spot meter the metering area (angle) of small hotshoe mountable meters is ususally far too wide that it would really make a significant difference between having it mounted or pointing it roughly in the right direction. Usually you point to a "medium gray" equivalent for metering anyway and not directly at your subject. I use a tiny Gossen Digisix with my M3 and so far I get it sufficiently right. There is a mount option for the Digisix but I never thought about going for it.
 
ruben said:
The question is not about compact shoe meters at all, but about the accuracy we may benefit from if we mount them on the camera top shoe, while handholding the camera

I have never used the VC, but if you can with one hand sustain the camera framed towards the subject while you are looking through the viewfinder, and with the other hand manipulate the meter to get the reading, and then lower the camera to read the meter exposure - then this would be great.
Click to expand...

The pointing accuracy is the same wheter a meter is on the shoe or in your hand. the acceptance angle of most reflective lgiht meters is 30 degrees. You can get "bad" metering accuracy if you include too much sky, for example, when metering a landscape. As photographer YOU have the responsibility to point the meter correctly to get an accurate reading.

If a 30 degree acceptance angle is too broad for the accuracy you desire the option is to uise a spot meter... or walk closer to the actual scene so 30 degrees meters the part of hte scene you are most interested in measuring. Spot meters are generally 1 degree. That is really, really detailed; perhaps too detailed for many general purpose situations. Gossen offers a 7/15 degree attachment for their LunaPro meter. It works quite well for spot metering without getting to the nit-picky level of a 1 degree spot meter.
 
As has been pointed out, reflected light meters typically have a 30* angle of acceptance, so there is not much accuracy to be gained in looking through a camera viewfinder with a mini meter mounted on top. I use both normal hand held incident/reflective meters and a mini CV meter II. Sometimes I will have the miniCV meter mounted on the camera hot shoe (actually a cold accessory shoe on the Leica M2) but meter with it at waist or chest level without bringing the camera to my eye. With negative film I tilt the meter down to exclude most or all of the sky when taking a reflected light reading.
 
Last edited:
It is also worthwhile to point out that 30 degree meters have been the norm since the dawn of photographic light meters and few have complained about "accuracy"... except the Zoen System and BTZS enthusiasts. If it were a significant problem the industry would have adapted a long, long time ago.
 
Hi Ed,

The whole issue with the mentioned 30 degrees, is what is in it.

If you photograph a big wall of a consistent tone, then you know what is within the 30 degrees. But if you photograph a mix of tones and light intensities your 30 degrees mixer will bring you an average juice of an unknown taste. It still will be digestible, most of the times, but the drink composition will remain unknown time after time.

Or in other words by this way we are averaging. But even not really averaging because we do not know what is inside that 30 degrees. It may contain a 70% of a bright white background and a 30% of a human body, in whose case with negative film we may still suck an image, but at this moment I think I would like to improve and know what I am doing.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
This is where the brain of the photographer has to do some work. If the scene (within the 30*) is not average in tone, then compensation needs to be applied in the appropriate direction: more exposure than indicated by the meter if the scene is lighter, or less exposure than indicated by the meter if the scene is darker.

Ruben, I think you would like to use an Olympus OM4 slr with its multi-spot reading meter.
 
Last edited:
ruben said:
...but at this moment I think I would like to improve and know what I am doing.
Click to expand...

What you seem to want to do is called 'scene analysis'. You need a spot meter to do that effectively.

The original post is quite "scatter brained" and never really says this. If your interest really is scene analysis conducted in a detailed manner, it has nothing to do with where the meter is mounted. It has everything to do with what meter is used and how that meter is used.

Those of us who are experienced photographers are well acquainted with the notion of general coverage meters and the exposure compensation required when the scene is "not average" or to stay within the design-constraints of the film being used. But thanks for the tutorial.

The tool I find quite effective for scene analysis is the Sekonic L-558. It is a spot meter (amongst several other metering modes) and it allows saving meter settings to memory and averaging. The display shows the individual readings plus the average ("recommended"). It is a lot of data... and in the end the same settings as one would get from an cheap 30-degree general-purpose meter is what is "recommended"... give or take a couple of stops that an experienced photographer would include if the scene is not average - like snow, or back-lit portrait, etc.

"To improve and know what you are doing", though, might be better served by reading a good book on the fundamentals of photography and photographic metering and shooting more film in a controlled manner (experimenting with a variety of "non-average" scene types) than buying a new meter. From past posts I get he distinct impression that complex meters confuse you (in which case a spot meter might frustrate you un-necessarily), and maybe you are still struggling with the basic concept of photographic metering in non-average environments.
 
Ruben, all of this analysis works great if you are shooting landscapes. But in the real world of moving people, you run what you brung and sort it out later.
 
Every meter is essentially an estimation. Some are better at estimating than others, and some situations are better being estimated than others.

If you want to meter precisely, use a spot meter and know how to use it. If you don't care to go to that trouble, use whatever is the closest at estimating what you think you want the result to be; bracket if still unsure.
 
I think that is what the Leicameter MR was made for. :) It has the same angle of "view" as a 90mm lens would provide have so looking through the VF with the small frame-line lever set to 90mm, and pressing the meter button gives a very exact (semi-integral-non-TTL) meter reading. Works very easy, reliable and fast.
 
I think it will be appropriate to frame a bit my thoughts.

First and foremost I would stress once again that it is my strong opinion in Phototography there is not only one way of doing things. Photography is by its own nature creative in its methods, means and end results.

Hence that any hostility for any opinion, question or thought - be it the thought of a beginer or a self declared experienced photographer is not but the clear sign of the deepest ignorant of life in general, not to speak about potography in particular.

Photography is a set of unshaken truths only at its most primitive concept. The beginer with great love for our craft, and consequently curious and open minded, is more than 30 degrees above the self declared "experienced photographer", feeling uneasy, molested, untolerant and hostyle - i, e, unable to put his sacred beliefs into a test.

From here onwards, let's start to make some order and clear things better. According to our friend aperture64, the VCII shoe mount meter is built in such a way that it enables to trigger the light metering action while still maintaining eye-viewfinder contact with the subject. I find this wonderfull, putting the VCII and any alike shoe meter beyond any other shoe mount meters, without this feature.

Now let's go for the broader question: how much important is to improve exposure skills ("experienced photographers" with Emeritus Membership excluded) ?

This question is to be dealt individually, without making any member nervous due to the existance of a thread about it. A good picture is composed by a big number of elements comming from different disciplines, from which an acceptable exposure and a superb exposure may be just a grain of sand - provided the picture is good. If anyone is to come and tell me "look I have other worries than improving my exposures", there is no problem with me, nor he should feel hurt by me.

In an image we are transmitting feelings thoughts info within a compositional harmony. Or the other way around. Control of exposure and processing seems to me much of a precondition. And I have not invented it, but the best books about Photography I have read, within my limits.

It was presisely when reading several times a chapter about exposure from a Weston Master manual, that I noticed again the notion of exposure range and setting your exposure on this basis and according to your will - that suddenly I felt doing a poor job with any metering I cannot see with my own eye what it is metering.

It has nothing to do with 30 degrees, 1 degree, or whatever, but learning to watch, compensate and fine tune my exposures.

It is true my friend Pickett Wilson, that in a world of moving subjects this may be a too ambitious task. Kindly let me recall a Brittish photographer, publisher of photo-image books, that more than a decade ago I happen to knew and see him working with a Leica and spotmeter. Spotmeter for every single frame with extraordinary speed at the Jerusalem Old City.

Untill then, if at all, there is no discussion Pickett, that pushing the shutter button should be done before the bird has gone. With or without the best exposure. Furthermore, just in case you practiced street photography, it is also true that having a meter mounted on the camera shoe may enable to adjust your meterless camera without the bird noticing your intentions

So there are very different types of photography and much more techniques than we could probably count, excluding the sacred truths I am happy to have had the honour to violate without even knowing it - just by natural behaviour (this kind of things make my day). And I agree with Bill when he says (instinctively paraphrasing Albert Einstein) every meter is essentially an estimation.

Cheers,
Ruben

PS
Meanwhile Mr George from QLM has answered me with so low prices that it will be a pitty not to fix my pair of Pilots.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ruben said:
Hence that any hostility for any opinion, question or thought - be it the thought of a beginer or a self declared experienced photographer is not but the clear sign of the deepest ignorant of life in general, not to speak about potography in particular.




is more than 30 degrees above the self declared "experienced photographer", feeling uneasy, molested, untolerant and hostyle - i, e, unable to put his sacred beliefs into a test.




("experienced photographers" with Emeritus Membership excluded) ?





It has nothing to do with 30 degrees, 1 degree, or whatever, but learning to watch, compensate and fine tune my exposures.
Click to expand...


What hostility? I see some passive-aggressive behaviour, but no hostility.

I, for one, am sorry to have tried helping you... not because I'm hostile but because at this point I haven't a clue what you want to learn or discuss. Good luck, though, with your meter repairs and your fine-tuning of your exposures.
 
Dear Mr Gumby,

On behalf of RFF, and to avoid myself having to deal with your personalized posts against me since long ago, after my last post I have you in my ignore list.

I understand your needs, as there is no man without misfortunes in his life, but just figure out if every one of us would abuse RFF argumentation to pour in our unrelated feelings.

At this special photo-op, I call on every single RFF member disliking my mind, my manners, whatever - please stop torturing yourself and use the ignore list, at leat once, to include me there. Kindly make me this favour at least for RFF sake, so that threads will not have to be closed, and could evolve free of personal deviations.

RFF will only gain. And it feels so damn good !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I started out reading the first post and was going to answer, as I have moved from shoe mount meter to the Sekonic 208.

Now I've read the last few posts I don't think I'll bother.
 
Seeing that the discussion is turning somewhat vitriolic without any particular reason, let's get back to the topic. IMHO where the meter is mounted is essentially just a question of storage. Intrinsically you don't get more accuracy out of putting it on top of your camera. While you are able to point it in a direction marginally more accurately, you pay a price for that in the form of awkward operation - usually you have to push a button on top of your camera for that.

One of the issues I had with the Leicameter MR4 was the awkward workflow of pointing the 90mm frame somewhere and then groping around on the top of the camera to push the metering button and engage the (mechanical!) lock, then taking the camera off the eye, setting exposure, and then putting the camera in front of the eye again - there simply is no point IMHO. If I want accuracy, I hang a spotmeter around my neck that runs circles around any Leicameter. If I want speed, I just keep a meter in my pocket and point it somewhere. The metering angle is big enough to cover any pointing inaccuracies, and you learn from experience to account for the shadows in your field of view. Or I do incident metering in the first place.

The other issue is that the camera gets bulky. It's like taking a compact camera and putting a Kiev-4-style metering bulge on top of it. Why should one do that? The only advantage is that it's marginally more difficult to lose the meter.

So in other words, my answer to the question in your headline is: no, you shouldn't.
 
Ruben, I started out as someone who spent too much time with a meter. Time permitting I'd use my Zone Six Pentax 1/21 degree spot meter on everything. Thought Ansel was the man. Have everything he (and others) have written on the zone system. I mean, look at Adam's photos! Perfection. And then I learned the dirty little secret that Adam's prints were wonderful because he was a great printer, not because of any magical zone system. The tonal range in his final prints rarely looked anything like the tonal range of his negatives. A straight print of "Moonrise," in fact, shows the moon against an almost white sky, for example.

And then, as someone else pointed out, I began to compare my carefully spot metered results with the results from my Luna Pro in reflected mode, and they were pretty much the same most of the time. Finally, I discovered the incident meter and now use it most of the time.

Perhaps if you are going to control the process from selecting the film, to carefully spot metering each shot, to spending the time to work out the developing times for each contrast level, to processing each frame separately, and then printing yourself, you could benefit from angst over metering. But it just wasn't any fun to me way back when I did so. YMMV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom