Hand held light meter

Averaging meters are only a guide, that's my experience. I'm learning about spot metering now to see if I can eliminate blown-out highlights, they've been my main worry with exposure.

 

My compact digital camera never gets it right, there's nearly always the flashing blown out highlights in the data playback/review image, usually in the sky, but not always, small white objects in a scene without sky sometimes flash in the data review as well. Quite often I manually set the exposure at 1/2 stop under, but can still get some flashing.

 

I did a simple test recently of all my meters, four selenium meters and three battery meters. The test was mainly to find out how they read in low light compared to one another. But first I checked them in a bright sunlight scene, they were all within a half stop of each other, this I already knew, but then I took them all inside the house with lights on and there was three stops difference between them. I then pointed them all at the Sun, same thing again, three stops difference.

 

So what did I learn ? I learned that I need to find out which meter is the most accurate in extremes of light. I think it is the Bronica AE111, it seemed more honest, showing a slower shutter speed for a given f stop than all the other meters. However, I can't use the AE111 for all my picture taking with different cameras so I'll do some test exposures with film in low light and see which of my handheld meters is best for dark shadows and the like.

 

The meters I compared were:

Zeiss Ikophot (red & cream one, match needle selenium)

Gossen Sixtino (selenium and quite lively)

Pallas S-6 (selenium, bought recently, appears to be new old stock. A badge engineering meter also named Vivitar and others)

Sekonic Auto Lumi model 86 (selenium, looks cheap but still working ok)

Sekonic L98 (battery, and I think the meter is on it's way out, close in daylight but can't really get a decent reading any more)

 

The next two are not handheld but I compared them with the others anyway

 

Petri FT (built-into camera, battery, match needle in viewfinder, a meter I trust explicitly when both cells are working, usually a broken "hair" wire)

Bronica AE111 (accessory meter, battery, has averaging and spot. Improved meter over the AE11 averaging meter)

 

None of the old needle meters I have are slouches, needles fly - but none of them read the same in extremes of light, up to three stops difference, So I would advise to pay extra for a new modern meter with proven quality in extreme light conditions. With cheap meters, as the light gets progressively worse, so does the meter accuracy.

My (very) old Gossen Lunarsix gave up the ghost a few years ago. The coil in the MC meter went open-circuit, and the same thing recently happened to a nice little Sekonic analogue meter. So I'd say there are two good reasons to avoid old meters that use mercury cells. One is obviously the cells themselves, and two, is that it's an indication of the age of a design that uses an electro-mechanical readout, which is probably close to the end of its useful life.

 

Precision and robustness aren't good bedfellows in a moving-coil meter mechanism.

I have a Minolta IIIf also that has never steered me wrong, although I only use it as an incident meter. Some may consider this a heresy, but I use a smartphone app for spot metering duties.

 

The Minolta meters remain relatively affordable. The battery situation at least for mine is somewhere in the middle of "common" and "unobtainable." By that I mean it uses the 6V PX28/4LR44 battery that looks like a short, fat AA cell. This is a battery used in a lot of 70s and 80s cameras(Canon A series, Canon New F-1, the Nikkormat EL/Nikon EL2 and probably a few others). The meter is not voltage sensitive-it will be correct as long as the battery can power on the meter-and consequently you can use your choice of alkaline, silver, or lithium chemistry. I usually use lithiums since the batteries tend to die from age rather than use. Also, it's worth noting that there's no power switch on the meter-it's supposed to "soft" power off when not in use, but is known to drain batteries. When I'm done using mine, I wedge something convenient-usually either a piece of film box or a piece of the paper band from a roll of 120 film-under one of the battery terminals. I've had the same battery in mine for ~3 years doing this.

I have a Minolta IIIf also. I take the battery out when I'm not using it. If you get a ivf, that model comes with a power switch.

Regarding accuracy, I have a Weston Ranger 9 that I've had since high school. It caused me no end of trouble at RIT because it was off by quite a lot and I wasn't smart enough to figure it out. Underexposed a lot of film. Decades later I have things like standard light sources and took another look at it. It's a simple CdS meter with the usual mercury battery and a few calibration pots for the different ranges and spans. The problem is it can't be completely calibrated. It can be right at some specific light levels, but getting it within a stop over the whole range is impossible. I suspect either the basic design is defective or they couldn't get CdS cells with consistent properties. If it weren't for the accuracy and the battery issue, it would be my nearly ideal meter. Today I wouldn't mess around with anything other than silicon sensors and designs that use common batteries. I remember reading somewhere that silicon photodiodes can be linear over seven decades of light intensity. Phototransistors, not so much.

Averaging meters are only a guide, that's my experience. I'm learning about spot metering now to see if I can eliminate blown-out highlights, they've been my main worry with exposure.

 

My compact digital camera never gets it right, there's nearly always the flashing blown out highlights in the data playback/review image, usually in the sky, but not always, small white objects in a scene without sky sometimes flash in the data review as well. Quite often I manually set the exposure at 1/2 stop under, but can still get some flashing.

 

I did a simple test recently of all my meters, four selenium meters and three battery meters. The test was mainly to find out how they read in low light compared to one another. But first I checked them in a bright sunlight scene, they were all within a half stop of each other, this I already knew, but then I took them all inside the house with lights on and there was three stops difference between them. I then pointed them all at the Sun, same thing again, three stops difference.

 

So what did I learn ? I learned that I need to find out which meter is the most accurate in extremes of light. I think it is the Bronica AE111, it seemed more honest, showing a slower shutter speed for a given f stop than all the other meters. However, I can't use the AE111 for all my picture taking with different cameras so I'll do some test exposures with film in low light and see which of my handheld meters is best for dark shadows and the like.

 

The meters I compared were:

Zeiss Ikophot (red & cream one, match needle selenium)

Gossen Sixtino (selenium and quite lively)

Pallas S-6 (selenium, bought recently, appears to be new old stock. A badge engineering meter also named Vivitar and others)

Sekonic Auto Lumi model 86 (selenium, looks cheap but still working ok)

Sekonic L98 (battery, and I think the meter is on it's way out, close in daylight but can't really get a decent reading any more)

 

The next two are not handheld but I compared them with the others anyway

 

Petri FT (built-into camera, battery, match needle in viewfinder, a meter I trust explicitly when both cells are working, usually a broken "hair" wire)

Bronica AE111 (accessory meter, battery, has averaging and spot. Improved meter over the AE11 averaging meter)

 

None of the old needle meters I have are slouches, needles fly - but none of them read the same in extremes of light, up to three stops difference, So I would advise to pay extra for a new modern meter with proven quality in extreme light conditions. With cheap meters, as the light gets progressively worse, so does the meter accuracy.

CdS meter cells were quite well known for "memory problems"--if exposed to bright light then brought indoors they take a while to adjust and give accurate readings again, so I'm not surprised that some of your meters responded the way that they did. I have both a Contax III and IIIa with working selenium meters (both had new cells put in by Henry Scherer) that are quite accurate in normal daylight but not that sensitive in low light, a common problem with selenium cell meters. For my professional work I depend on Sekonic silicon cell flash meters and also have a Zone VI modified Soligor 1 degree spot meter. All three of them agree, and more to the point give accurate exposures with both digital and transparency film.

Appreciate all the inputs, I learned more about meters than I expected :-) , I was able to pick up a Sekonic L-558 in mint condition for just under $300, thought it was a decent price so I picked it up, thanks

CdS meter cells were quite well known for "memory problems"--if exposed to bright light then brought indoors they take a while to adjust and give accurate readings again, so I'm not surprised that some of your meters responded the way that they did. I have both a Contax III and IIIa with working selenium meters (both had new cells put in by Henry Scherer) that are quite accurate in normal daylight but not that sensitive in low light, a common problem with selenium cell meters. For my professional work I depend on Sekonic silicon cell flash meters and also have a Zone VI modified Soligor 1 degree spot meter. All three of them agree, and more to the point give accurate exposures with both digital and transparency film.

 

 

Yes it's time I bought a modern handheld meter, I've been putting it off because I'm shooting in daylight and getting by with the old meters have here, but what I need now is a meter similar to the Sekonic that Mark just bought to average out the high dynamic range in some tricky landscapes I've been trying for some time to get right. I'll be quite jubilant when I finally nail them but it will require the correct color film as well, I've just been reading Help with Sekonic L-558 Meter

 

A sample of the dynamic range I'm faced with. Film: Ektar 100. It would be so easy to walk away and photograph something else, but the many escarpments around here keep challenging my ego.

I remember reading somewhere that silicon photodiodes can be linear over seven decades of light intensity.

The trouble is that what's needed in a photographic light meter is a logarithmic response, not linear. Otherwise we'd quickly run out of dial or digits to represent the exposure.

 

Converting a linear current output into a logarithmic readout isn't trivial if the device is to remain accurate with temperature changes. However, that's not really our problem as users or consumers.

....but what I need now is a meter similar to the Sekonic that Mark just bought to average out the high dynamic range in some tricky landscapes I've been trying for some time to get right.

I really don't see anything very tricky in that example shot. Certainly nothing that needs a fancy meter. A simple grey card or incident reading would have done the job. Or using digital and avoiding the limited 'dynamic range' of slide film altogether.

 

Incidentally, it looks as if that scene could have used about a half-stop more exposure. The cloud highlights aren't hitting full white, while the shadows are blocked - unless those are scanning issues.

 

A spotmeter reading off the brightest parts of the cloud, and opening up 2.5 stops is the strategy I would probably have taken. Or a simple incident reading, since the landscape is obviously in the same light as at the camera position.

 

Averaging a highlight and shadow reading is a bit simplistic, and still doesn't guarantee that those extremes will be properly represented if the recording medium can't handle the range. No meter can expand a limited capture range, and you can only give one exposure; no matter how many meter readings you take.

 

You just have to decide where you want to retain detail, and meter that single area, with appropriate adjustment for where it falls on the tonal range of the medium.

Edited July 30, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

Appreciate all the inputs, I learned more about meters than I expected :) , I was able to pick up a Sekonic L-558 in mint condition for just under $300, thought it was a decent price so I picked it up, thanks

 

Have one, too. Very versatile and deadly accurate. Get access to the manual if none came with yours--necessary for custom set-ups and max utility.