Nikkormat EL meter question

[josh_gilreath]

<p>I have a Nikkormat EL that I purchased at an estate sale a couple years ago, and I've rarely used it. The camera itself is in excellent condition, and the meter does work. The question I have though is the meter in the Nikkormat EL seems to read differently when compared to my FA (center weighted) or FG. The Nikkormat's meter will give me something like 1/125 @ f2.5 when the exposure should be more like 1/30 @ f2.5. But the roll of color neg film I ran through the nikkormat came out fine and I only used the nikkormat meter.. any suggestons?</p>

[sking]

<p>Josh,<br>

If the camera gives you good exposures, then just use it. If you want to know how accurate the exposure meter is, shoot a roll of slide film and see how the results look. Otherwise, if the camera is giving you good results, why sweat it?<br>

Steven</p>

 

[jim_momary]

<p>The FA uses center weighted and/or multi-pattern metering. The EL uses only center weighted. They both in that mode heavily rely on the center 12mm dia spot for the bulk of the sensing.<br>

Did you have both in the center weighted mode (FA here as the EL only does that)?<br>

Did you properly engage the coupling lever with the fork on the lens and set max aperture?<br>

In the final analysis, for 30 year old meter technology (read = aged and off spec), 2 stops of error ain't that bad for negatives. It's possible the FA is low by one stop and the EL is high by one stop (vice versa) and the offsets are then even more understandable.<br>

Does the FA also produce correct exposures?<br>

Are negatives from both the same density?<br>

Jim (EL owner)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I once had two hand-held meters that didn't agree, so I got another meter to see which was right, and then I had three meters that didn't agree.</p>

<p>While this is a slight exaggeration, differences in how different cameras (and meters) read the light (the angle of acceptance, different sensitivities of the meter to different parts of the spectrum, and many, many more variables) make it difficult to compare readings for readings. Get some slide film (since it has less latitude) and run it through the camera at different bracketed settings (plus and minus a half-stop and a full stop, for example). Of course, either put labels into the shots (best) or keep detailed records of the shots. Do some open shade, some sunlight, etc and see how the meter is actually doing in terms of the results you get using it.</p>

<p>In your statement, if you mean that your negative film <em>negatives</em> were of the appropriate density, etc. that's one thing, but if you mean that <em>prints</em> from the negatives came out recognizable, then that "don't mean a thing" since the printer will have adjusted exposure and so forth.</p>