Do you ever use the lightmeter in your M?

[sk_szekiat]

give me that in built meter everyday. Heck, i take it one further. I shoot AE mode almost

exclusively these days. I know how my meter behaves and when i need to compensate for it

but otherwise, it give me instant feedback. Why estimate when u can have a good reading all

the time. Also, AE allows me to adjust/change my dof in one quick motion instead of having

to turn the aperture ring & the shutter dial. Best thing ever for me!

[kenny_c]

Lets all just take note that you do use the light meter *indoors*.

[blakley]

I usually don't use the meter in my MP, and when I do it's mainly to check myself. Indoors I almost never use a meter of any kind because the light is usually predictable. Outdoors near sunrise or sunset, or in light conditions which change because of the weather, I will sometimes use the in-camera meter, though in these situations I very much prefer to use a handheld incident meter.

 

Most of the time I use my memory or my "cheat sheet" (a laminated card with exposures for most common situations).

[peter_n1664876959]

The meters are so good in my Ms that I'd be foolish not to. I also use a Quantum Calcu-Light XP for incident and very low light readings. It reads down to -7EV at 100 ASA.

[dayton_p._strickland1]

I usually meter off the back of my hand and adjust from there. I recently

purchased a Voigtlaender R-3a with the aperture preferred metering and

found it to be fairly accurate, but I still rather would do a manual meter off my

hand and adjust. Having said all that, when I owned an M3 I used a Weston V

(still own) and got very accurate slide and print film exposures.

[terry_rory]

Yes. I use the meter in my M6

[hans_berkhout]

If it's a static subject I'd meter first. For spontanuous situations I shoot first then check focusing and meter. (In those situations I usually have the M prefocused and the exposure preset, I correct the meter setting if I enter a differently lit area).

[erikhaugsby]

<i>Do we still have young photographers who can work manually without any electronics?</i>

<br>

<br>

Not to sound braggy, but that'd be me. I've got an M2 that did not come with a LeicaMeter when I bought it, took it out for fun guessing on every exposure and most of them came out pretty close to what I would term "proper." <br>I have little or no intention of buying any form of meter.

[john_graham3]

I guess exposures. Blindfold me and I can get around my house, shower, shave, even cook dinner. Do I win first prize? You guys are a hoot.

[kenny_c]

I'm 30, I meter as manually as possible, the light meter gives me a last check before I go.

I'd say most of the time I'm right within a stop. Does that count?

[dan flanders]

It was quite a few years after I got my first real camera (a Foth Derby) that I could even dream of owning a lightmeter; consequently I first learned to estimate exposure from the tables contained in the yellow box. Then I heard about the Sunny 16 and correlated it with the exposure tables. When I finally was able to afford a meter (it was an extinction meter) I used it mainly to verify what I had already estimated, or in really critical lighting situations. In old age I am inclined to be a bit lazy about such things and have begun to use the meter in my M6; but still, I find that in most instances I am using the exposure data that I started out with after applying the good old Sunny 16. I have a couple of expensive hand held meters that are useful in some critical situations but the older I get the less junk I like to carry aroud with me. The basic camera and whatever lenses I might need are all I want to carry around, but even then, I reduce my load to the bare minimum. I would rather carry extra film than extraneous gadgetry.

[marc_bergman1]

If you want a real laugh; go to the Large Format forum and see how those posers have to use a 1 degree spot meter and take many readings just for one image.

 

It is such a free feeling to use the Zen approach to photography. See the photo, be the photo.

 

\end of sarcasm

 

I actually learned photography using an Argus C3, no meter, and Kodachrome. Those were the days. I bought film using my allowance or returning pop bottles. I was very careful with each exposure.

 

Now, with over thirty years of darkroom experience, I greatly value proper exposure. I will use my in-camera meter when available, or use a handheld ambient\reflective\flash meter and I don't care who knows that fact.

[frederick_muller]

LOL ... the Force, Luke. Remember "the Force"

 

Seriously, Mike Dixon's point really rings true: "I get more-consistent (and accurate) results using the meter. Consistency saves time in the darkroom."

 

It really is true ... even in photoshop. Why should every frame be an exercise in saving the shot? I think what we are talking about here is intelligent, informed use of a meter ... not slavish use of a meter.

[sprouty]

The first thing I learned when I started processing and printing my own work was that I didn't know a damn thing about exposure. In fact I was under exposing most everything. The lab I used to have the work done at would routinely adjust for the different densities of the negs to give me reasonable prints, so I never knew.

 

So Leon, with all due respect, unless you're shooting slides or doing your own processing you really may not be as "spot on" as you think.

 

BTW, in order of preference: I use a hand-held meter, meter off the palm of my hand (+1.5 stops), or meter off the subject and consider the tonal scale of the scene.

[colin_elliott]

Got my first camera in 1954. Shot mainly Kodachrome II, Ferraniacolour and Ilford FP3.

 

Got my first meter in 1966. Now I use my meter(s) only to confirm that what's between my ears, is still accurate!

[steve_larese1]

I do in my M6ttl as much as any camera. I use Leica because it's quick and small. Using

another meter would defeat this. I tend to bracket if I have the time, usually toward

overexposure. Often the slightly different exposures are all acceptable. I view the M6

meter as a helpful suggestion that is often pretty much on the mark.

[steve_larese1]

I should add that 90 percent of the time I'm shooting Velvia 100...

[pc_b]

[sarcasm/]

You own trunks full of Leicas and are affraid of doing it the manly way - H.C.-B. style?!?

H.C.-B. style: let me help your memory. Prefocus your 50 for 9ft, set the aperture to 8,

click to 1/60 (Efke 25 ASA film, nothing else (anymore), please!) and let the lab slaves and

printers take care of the details.

[/sarcasm]

 

LOL ... "throw away your meter... ": why buy one in the first place? LOEL

 

Cheers, Peter

[eliot_rosen1]

Is this a troll post? Of course I use the meter, that's why it's there. Otherwise I wouldn't buy a metered M if I weren't going to use it. Duh. :-)

[john_graham3]

How many points is it worth if someone always guesses at the focus and composition too, instead of using the rangefinder/framelines?

[jack_matlock]

Always, when shooting with the M6 or M6 TTL, unless the batteries are out. Not with the M1, M2, or M3 (though I have an MR meteer). It is more accurate to take a spot reading off the back of my hand, as Al Kaplan suggested (Zone VI). I use the M1, which has no rangefinder, with the 21mm Super Angulon, and find that scale focussing works fine.

 

Hey, do you use the rangefinder on your MP? If you can guess the exposure, why not guess the distance? An M1 should do you just fine and would save you a bundle!

[john_graham3]

I just pull a piece of unexposed film out in front of me and put it back in my pocket in whatever fraction of a second I guess is the exposure. No camera, no lens. Top <i>that</i>.

[Rob F.]

"Do we still have young photographers who can work manually without any electronics?"

 

Leon, we don't even seem to have any young photographers who know what depth of field is; what a DOF scale is: or who even notice that there is no DOF scale on their shiny new Zoom AF/D/XYZ lenses. Many of them don't even notice that their Nikkor lens has no aperture control ring anymore. They wouldn't know what to do with it if it did.

 

"Remember the original Nikon F - with the photomic meter head?"

 

John: Yeah, vaguely. I think that's the one for which I had to keep a standard prism around as a spare, for when the photomic was in the shop. I can't honestly say I remember it well, as it was always in the shop. But I remember it vaguely. I prefer my M6/FE2/ R6/F3 metering systems!

[nels]

So if you can consistently guesstimate accurate exposure without a meter, does that make you a better photographer or simply a better guesstimator of exposures?

[kevin m.]

I hear Al rolls his own cigarettes. Does that make him a better smoker?