Jump to content

Handheld Exposure Meter


danac

Recommended Posts

The newest you can afford, as in: no ages old third or fourth hand relic, yes. But as in the most recent model, no. Recent models differ from old models in display type and user interface, but are not better meters than those made 50 years ago, or still current simple models such as the already mentioned, extremely simple Gossen Digisix.

I think meter made in the 80's on are fine. Some from the 70's are good too not all of them but I think almost all of the meters introduced in the 80's have about the same accuracy as today's meters. Just don't have the computation stuff which you can do yourse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get the newest you can afford. Avoid holy relics that require battery hacks and/or suffer from age-related inaccuracy. Keep in mind that a working meter isn't always an accurate meter. I like the Sekonic 308--strong seller, lots used, AA-powered, deadly accurate.

The newest you can afford, as in: no ages old third or fourth hand relic, yes. But as in the most recent model, no. Recent models differ from old models in display type and user interface, but are not better meters than those made 50 years ago, or still current simple models such as the already mentioned, extremely simple Gossen Digisix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think meter made in the 80's on are fine. Some from the 70's are good too not all of them but I think almost all of the meters introduced in the 80's have about the same accuracy as today's meters. Just don't have the computation stuff which you can do yourse

I use a couple of Gossen Mastersix meters, now almost 40 years old, that compute more than i have ever used (Cd/s, for instance?). And a Gossen Spotmaster of similar vintage, that is the ideal Zone System meter (besides being a regular spotmeter, offering any mode recent models offer), making Zone calculations as easy as pointing the meter at a number of spots and sliding values up or down a scale.

They joined a number of Gossen Profisix and Lunasix F meters, that use a moving needle and a dial to tell you everything you want to know.

Older meters, such as the Lunasix 3 offer the same, but use more difficult to use sensors (and batteries that are no longer available).

I don't think more recent meters offer anything more, except touch screen displays and other such non-essentials.

 

We will have to remind ourselves, perhaps, that light metering is not something that evolves. We use the same sensors as we did back then. And there are no new parameters to calculate.

What makes some old meters less desirable is older light sensors (CdS, or even Selenium) and/or old battery types. Not what they do with the values they measure.

 

Those oldies all use regular 9 V block batteries. No worries there.

Edited by q.g._de_bakker
  • Excellent! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an L-208 for years , dropped in the ocean ( they don't call me Klutz , for nothing ) and promptly ordered

another to replace it . If there was an exposure problem , it was me screwing up the film speed setting or

twisting the dials on the camera backwards :) . Why look any further , it's even cheaper when on sale and

you've spent little if not satisfied ! Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I don't think more recent meters offer anything more, except touch screen displays and other such non-essentials."

 

Sorry q.c. but old Gossens--whatever their power source--are relics. They're also big and not the easiest to use. Sekonics like the 308 are "best buys." The larger, pricier Sekonic 5xx, 6xx, 7xx meters offer spot, flash and ambient. Looks to me like you haven't been meter shopping for a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I don't think more recent meters offer anything more, except touch screen displays and other such non-essentials."

 

Sorry q.c. but old Gossens--whatever their power source--are relics. They're also big and not the easiest to use. Sekonics like the 308 are "best buys." The larger, pricier Sekonic 5xx, 6xx, 7xx meters offer spot, flash and ambient. Looks to me like you haven't been meter shopping for a few years.

Big? Yes. So are those do-it-all present day contraptions. Heavy? Yes. Relics? Could not be further from the truth.

 

I know what's available, C. There's nothing the newer machines offer that strikes me as a must-have, not available using those oldies. Really nothing.

Spot. flash and ambient, incident and reflective? Nothing new there. Touch screen displays and other non-essentials. That's all that is new.

Again: "We will have to remind ourselves, perhaps, that light metering is not something that evolves." A tiny, simple meter like the Digisix already offers everything you need to get perfect exposure. Need flash? get the Digisix 2.

No spot metering, no. You do not need spot metering. My least used meter (and meter attachments). Spot metering is a cumbersome way of getting where incident metering brings you in one easy step.

Edited by q.g._de_bakker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 208 and a 308. What I like about the 208 is the traditional rotating dials and the size, of course. What I don't like so much is that there is a bit of slack in reading, so it gives slightly different measurements if you turn the light level pointer to match the meter from low to high, compared to from high to low. I have compared it to my collection of other meters and I conclude that the 308 is more accurate even though I'm not so keen on the digital display. I also have the tiny Voigtlander meter which is good (reflection only) except it has an infuriating tendency to shift the film speed setting: there's not enough friction to hold it in place. I've thought of glueing it at 400 and if I rarely need a different film sensitivity then make a mental adjustment. Or sell it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m really no expert in meters, but what I do know is that it is important what you point your meter at. If you plan on B&W landscapes, I would get something sensible and reliable and put your time and energy into learning how to use it properly. If weight isn’t a problem, and you have one, take a DSLR camera instead. Matrix, centre weighted and spot, all in one at no additional expense. If your’e lugging around an RB67 in any case, you’ll barely notice the extra load!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big? Yes. So are those do-it-all present day contraptions. Heavy? Yes. Relics? Could not be further from the truth.

 

I know what's available, C. There's nothing the newer machines offer that strikes me as a must-have, not available using those oldies. Really nothing.

Spot. flash and ambient, incident and reflective? Nothing new there. Touch screen displays and other non-essentials. That's all that is new.

Again: "We will have to remind ourselves, perhaps, that light metering is not something that evolves." A tiny, simple meter like the Digisix already offers everything you need to get perfect exposure. Need flash? get the Digisix 2.

No spot metering, no. You do not need spot metering. My least used meter (and meter attachments). Spot metering is a cumbersome way of getting where incident metering brings you in one easy step.

 

Enjoy your relics. Old Gossens with tack-on accessories don't, as I recall, do "useless" 1 degree spot metering. That said, there must be a small army of delusional souls who productively use narrow spot metering.If you don't? So what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enjoy your relics. Old Gossens with tack-on accessories don't, as I recall, do "useless" 1 degree spot metering. That said, there must be a small army of delusional souls who productively use narrow spot metering.If you don't? So what.

There you go, C. You do not know what you are talking about.

Please try to educate yourself about what was and is available before chiming in with your verdict. Ill- or uninformed advice serves noone. Except your own ego.

Those 'relics' still work today as good as any present day meter. Could you imagine and explain why they would not?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go, C. You do not know what you are talking about.

Please try to educate yourself about what was and is available before chiming in with your verdict. Ill- or uninformed advice serves noone. Except your own ego.

Those 'relics' still work today as good as any present day meter. Could you imagine and explain why they would not?

 

Piss away, q.c. Out-dated, ill-informed, irrelevant. Live with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 208 and a 308. What I like about the 208 is the traditional rotating dials and the size, of course. What I don't like so much is that there is a bit of slack in reading, so it gives slightly different measurements if you turn the light level pointer to match the meter from low to high, compared to from high to low. I have compared it to my collection of other meters and I conclude that the 308 is more accurate even though I'm not so keen on the digital display....

On the other hand, I prefer the 308 (or 318), 1 button press gets you everything. No rotating a dial to transfer a reading, then looking on a scale... even the tiny capable digisix requires that... although it does read out in EVs, so it's pretty efficient with Hasselblad C/CF lenses.

 

Not that I have any issues with dials and scales, I grew up using my father's Zeiss Ikophot-T, which worked great for an out-dated relic. I still have it. Still accurate. CDS technology with a 9V battery that last for ever. I just personally like the 318/308 better. It great having choices.

  • Like 1
"Manfred, there is a design problem with that camera...every time you drop it that pin breaks"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 208 and a 308. What I like about the 208 is the traditional rotating dials and the size, of course. What I don't like so much is that there is a bit of slack in reading, so it gives slightly different measurements if you turn the light level pointer to match the meter from low to high, compared to from high to low.

 

The "high to low" is the difference between reflective and incident readings on the L-208, if we're talking about the same 208. It's not really high and low. Sliding the diffuser across the cell port will give you incident readings while the meter is pointed back at the camera, as per the instructions.

 

I just received a 208 in the mail two weeks ago, so I can clip it to cold/hot shoes on the cameras that have them and I expect I'll be using it for average reflective readings only. I'll also use it handheld, but not for landscapes, it's not sensitive enough for deep shadows and highlights at a distance. However, I like the fact it takes the same battery as my car's remote door key. But for what they are, they are over-priced, made of plastic and made in the Philippines, middle men are screwing us.

 

How I wish my old L-98 was still accurate. I must get it repaired/calibrated one day, it's very sensitive, especially in low light. But after years of storage, it's two stops under exposing, the ASA has to be set differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After much study over the last week I can now appreciate the efficacy of a spot meter for landscapes. Deb always has her Canon T7i. It has a "spot" meter that covers 3.5% of the view so I can try it for a somewhat equivalent tool.
A book's a great place to hide out in - Trevanian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

whilst I don't want to start into a reflected vs incident debate , or indeed a wide angle receptor vs a spot meter debate ( and however narrow a spot needs to be to be useful debate) there is one thing I'd like to say that is just so right I have to say it.

 

If you want to use a spot meter get your own.

 

It is not reasonable to expect someone who may be trying to set up their own photographs to meter for you or hand over her camera for you to play with.

 

You don't need to buy/carry a dedicated spot meter. the Sekonic 508/558/608 and successors combine incident and spot facility . There are others that do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would get one of the multi-function Sekonic meters.

Then you can experiment with spot, averaging and incident.

 

For a LONG time I used incident. I forget how I got into it, but incident metering became and still is my SOP.

I did not get a spot meter until I got my 4x5 view camera. Although I did understand the zone system way before that, I just did not apply it to roll film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many spotmeters there are languishing unused in drawers, or stuffed in forgotten pockets of gadget bags?

Because I suspect the novelty quickly wears off as the realisation dawns that the exposures being given are near identical to an incident or average reading, got in a fraction of the time and with much less fuss.

 

Maybe there's the occasional shot that has an important tone that needs to be got right. But if you're experienced enough to recognise that, then you're also experienced enough to add or subtract the required exposure without the aid of dithering about with a spotmeter.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes, meters ... From about 1980 into this millennium most of my cameras in use had built in meters. So when I stumbled into medium format in 2005, my legacy collection of meters seemed pretty motley. I ended up buying a new Gossen Digisix, It weighs about two ounces and could get lost in a shirt pocket. It does incident and reflected, and there was also a flash version. (But I use flash about once every two years.) The only complaint I have is the battery (CR2032) seems to fade away rather rapidly even when it's stored away. There is now a Digisix II -- no idea if it's any better on electron consumption.

 

I also later treated myself to a used Sekonic L-508 which does incident, 1 -- 4º spot, and flash. It runs on a single AA cell which is just perfect. It can do some tricks like average multiple readings and such. But though I don't always agree with rodeo_joe, I have to admit my L-508 does not spend much time in the field.

 

I have a couple of apps on my iPhone. I've not seriously tested them against "real" meters, and they do just feel a bit suspect. I suppose the apps could suffer from various phone and operating system variations, but the allure was being able to deal with the tiny apertures of pinhole cameras. Since the recent pinhole work is with X-ray film, and well -- uh -- pinholery, accuracy may not be too critical!

 

There are several "cottage industry" sources of very small meters that mount in an accessory shoe. I might even look at them if I were again in the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many spotmeters there are languishing unused in drawers, or stuffed in forgotten pockets of gadget bags?

Because I suspect the novelty quickly wears off as the realisation dawns that the exposures being given are near identical to an incident or average reading, got in a fraction of the time and with much less fuss.

 

Maybe there's the occasional shot that has an important tone that needs to be got right. But if you're experienced enough to recognise that, then you're also experienced enough to add or subtract the required exposure without the aid of dithering about with a spotmeter.

 

Yeah, right...Maybe I should just saw the spot meter off my Sekonic 558 to avoid whispers and dismissive looks. Funny but it does get used, especially when incident doesn't give the look I want. Guess I've got enough "experience" to know when and how to use a 1 degree meter. Same old pontification, Joe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny but it does get used, especially when incident doesn't give the look I want.

I'm not seeking to get combative about this, but what exactly do you mean by 'look'?

I keep seeing vague subjective descriptions like 'look', 'feel', 'creaminess', '3 dimensionality' and similar non-specific terms bandied about in support of one technique or another. All phrases that never get fully explained.

 

"Pontification"?

Is that what you call expressing an opinion that doesn't agree with your own?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not seeking to get combative about this, but what exactly do you mean by 'look'?

I keep seeing vague subjective descriptions like 'look', 'feel', 'creaminess', '3 dimensionality' and similar non-specific terms bandied about in support of one technique or another. All phrases that never get fully explained.

 

"Pontification"?

Is that what you call expressing an opinion that doesn't agree with your own?

 

What could possibly be more subjective than how we want an image to look? Any wonder the language to describe it might be a bit too woolly for your taste? Who cares? Not me.

 

Stating an opinion is one thing, being dismissive seems to be your habit hereabouts. Tiresome.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...