Metering Question for Medium Format

I have a question that I think I can answer in theory, but the

practical side seems to differ. I own a Kiev 60 with the 45mm, 80mm,

Zeiss 120mm and Zeiss 180mm. My Kiev 60 has the TTL viewfinder but

the exposure meter is off by at least 2-3 stops so it is pretty much

useless.

 

I own a Nikon F5 and F100 and since I do NOT own a hand-held meter, I

simply put the appropriate lens on the Nikons (a 100mm in 35mm

compares well to my Zeiss 120mm) and use the Nikon meter in Matrix or

spot-metering. Overall this seems to work well but it seems that the

Medium format lens are a touch slower than my Nikon lenses. I think

that the reading I get with the Nikon usually needs to have 2/3 to 1

stop more added to it for the Medium format. Is this the experience

of any others out there? I may be crazy but it does not seem to be

an exact correlation between the 35mm and medium format.

For what it is worth, I have noticed the same pattern using my Koni Omega Rapid and my YashicaMat 124G. I know the Nikons are dead on as they are serviced professionally every other year and the 35mm results bear out that they are correct.

 

I shoot color negative about 90% of the time and black and white negative the other 10%. I also use the same pro lab for both my 35mm and 120 format and most of the time I am using the same Fuji or Kodak film.

 

Thanks so much for any help.

5.6 in 35mm is 5.6 in 6x6 and also in 4x5 and this goes for any give aperture.

 

Tests in a Dutch magazine and the reaction of the Dutch Nikon agent showed that the metering of Nikon camera's tends a little to underexposure, compared to other brands (or the others have a little overexposure compared to Nikon). The 2/3 stop is about the difference the tests showed.

Frank,

 

Thanks for the info. I have never noticed a problem with my Nikons and when compared with a friends Canon EOS 1-V, they were dead on. I have never heard about the Nikon tending to underexposure as almost everything I have read or heard says the Matrix and spot are dead on. Anyway, I am appreciative of the info and will file it as I determine the correct exposure.

The test was done a couple of years ago, with an F90x. The Dutch agent acknowledged the difference when they were shown to him. However, I used Nikon for a while myself and never had any problem with the metering.

I don't believe that Nikon exposure meters are habitually 2/3 stop out. It would make it difficult to get a properly exposed colour transparency and would be totally unacceptable to vast numbers of users. Neither do I believe that all the other brands but Nikon are habitually out.

 

The method you outline should work, unless of course the shutter speeds/ aperture settings on the Kiev are out a little either individually or in combination. Lenses do differ a little in this respect; I have a Bronica 250mm lens that is probably 1/4 stop darker than the other lenses I have. If the degree of adjustment needed is constant you might want just to live with it. If it isn't then maybe it's a sign that the Kiev needs looking at.

 

One thing though, do you have the lens comparabilities right? I'd expect a MF 180mm to look closer to a 100mm 35mm lens than does a 120mm MF.

What I wrote about the meteringdifferences is true, though I admit it souds strange.

 

The 120mm 6x6 lens is about 70mm in 35mm

You guys are both right and I was wrong. I meant to put 180mm in 6x6 equates roughly to a 100mm. The 120mm in 6x6 does equate to roughly 70mm to 75mm. Got in a hurry and was not looking. I use the Kodak Professional Photoguide for their conversions but it is pretty simple after a while. Thanks for the info so far.

"5.6 in 35mm is 5.6 in 6x6 and also in 4x5 and this goes for any give aperture."

 

---But this does not mean that all lenses transmit an equal amount of light at f/5.6 (or any given aperture). The number of elements/glass-to-air surfaces, and the type of coatings used, can and do affect the amount of light transmitted.

 

The f/ number is only the ratio of focal length to iris diameter. It doesn't completely equate to actual performance. Close, but not exact. OTOH, some lenses are calibrated in t/stops (t for transmission). Two lenses, say for 6x6 and 135, both calibrated in t/stops, will transmit the same amount of light at the same aperture. Lenses for still cameras are seldom so calibrated, though.

 

Whether or not this will make enough difference to explain the problem is another matter. The 45mm Kiev might have more elements, and if so could absorb, reflect, and scatter more light, compared to the reference Nikon lens. Apart from that, I don't think the rest of your lenses, at least the Zeiss ones, ought to be slower than a Nikon lens. (I assume they are T* coated).

 

The Kiev 60's shutter might be off, compared to the Nikon's. The emulsions you are using might not be equivalent in speed in the two formats.

 

I haven't noticed any difference in exposure between my Nikon FE-2's versus my Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad, using Fuji Provia as a basis for comparison.

I just knew someone was going to bring up t/stops!

Chances are that the shutter of your Kiev60, like every other part of most Kiev60s, is totally inaccurate. That's the most likely reason for the exposure discrepency between the two cameras, and has nothing to do with the lenses, or the meter in the Nikon, at all.

I have found that my Nikon F90x and F100 and Leica M6 give identical readings of controlled subjects. I set them as my standard if i'm checking something else.

Jimmy

 

As has been pointed out already, the fact that one can get correct exposure with one camera and not with another when taking the readings from one to another doesn`t surprise me one little bit. Correct exposure is simply that the lens and shutter are balancing one another (if you know what i mean) to get to the correct exposure one way or another really.

 

Not to be rude in any way but I note that quite a few people use another camera with metering to set the exposure for MF. I just can`t really understand the logic here. I find it bad enough to have to carry a MF camera around to get the results that I`m after let alone carry another format just for metering:-) Not to open a can of worms but the thought of going without incident metering under certain conditions fills me with horror. Good light meters aren`t cheap (but good second hand ones can be had for the cost of a pro pack of film )I purchased a Minolta 1Vf many years ago and although not cheap it has given me years of faultless operation and from memory I have only changed the battery once. I`m sure I`ve had my money back in not wasting film over the years.

 

Good Shooting

 

Dave C

To check the shutter theory, you should use the same type of transparency film in both cameras, photograph a white wall and then compare the densities of the slides.

 

Or check the shutter speed by photographing something moving at constant speed - like a record turntable.

 

If you are not using colour transparency, 3/4 of a stop would not make much difference.

many old shutters are slow; until used abit; this adds to the confusion.......