Use of Metered M's compared to non metered.

[tony_salce]

A question for those that have used non metered M's and then moved to

use metered bodies. Having used the metered bodies and experienced

the convenience of the on board meter have the metered cameras then

become the primarily used cameras ?

 

The reason for the question is that I use M5's ( and will continue to

use them ) and was considering going back to additionally using an M2

or M4 with either a hand held or MR meter.

 

Just wondering whether this would be a retrograde step and whether

once you become accustomed to the on board meter you miss it when

using non metered M's.

 

Apologies if the question is difficult to follow.

 

Regards,

 

 

Tony Salce

[john_collier2]

I started with an M2 then moved up to metered bodies. The metered bodies are my

first choice and the M2 is used when I need more mounted lenses than I have

metered bodies. The M2 is a gorgeous camera; silky smooth and all that sort of thing.

However the point is the photos, and the metered bodies work better for me. YMMV

[furcafe]

I use both metered Ms (M6 TTL + Hexar RF) & non-metered Ms

(M2 & M3 + a whole bunch of other non-metered RFs, usually

w/a Gossen Digisix). FWIW, I have no problem switching back &

forth between the 2 types of cameras, but do find metered

cameras to be faster & more convenient, especially in low-light &

tricky lighting conditions (e.g., stage performances).

[asher]

I shot with an M6 about 10 years ago, and now use an M3. I have a hand-held meter but I don't use it; I have resorted to eye-balling exposures. I don't bracket. This approach actually improves my response time, since the exposure settings are set before the camera goes up to my eye. I would estimate that at most 3-4 shots per 36 of Provia are not exposed the way I envisioned. If you shoot B&W film with wider latitude...<P>

Unfortunately, the lab that scanned my recent color shots did a lousy job. You just have to take my word that the slides are exposed as I envisioned, are more luminescent, and are <U>much</U> sharper than the scanned images. So I would say go for it.

[robert_vanlane]

I prefer a handheld meter.

Take a reading , set the shutter speed and aperature and then raise the camera , focus and shoot.

If I use the in-camera meter I have to raise the camera to my eye twice and it seems to make for a more posed shot.

But I just picked up a BessaT and I like that the LEDs are on the outside of the camera. So for that camera I hold my hand in front of the camera, meter , set and then raise the camera to my eye.

 

Thanks

 

Robert VanLane

[jim_mcbride]

Tony: I used an M3 with a handheld selenium meter since the

early 1970s up to about a year ago. That's when I bought one of

the new Cosina/Voigtlander clip on meters. It is very accurate

and I haven't missed an exposure since. However, I dislike

losing the use of the shoe because then I can't use accessory

viewfinders (I do a lot of wideangle work). Just the same, the C/V

meter can be used handheld, too. It would be faster to have a

metered M, but I always try to not be in a hurry - I get better pix

that way.

[mrivers]

I find that my metered M is helpful for rapidly changing indoor lighting situations

where a semi spot reflective meter is quicker. If I am outside, I am usually close with

Sunny 16, and I use a Digisix as an incident meter. This is a more deliberate making

of a photograph, and my M4 is a wonderful camera.

[harry_soletsky1]

I used M3s, a M2 and some M4s with the MR4 meter and the handheld Calculite. When I got an M5 and then a CL and I found the meter more convenient and more accurate. The M6 were the icing on the cake and that's basically what I use plus a CLE occassionally. With the new flare free finder, that settled the case.

[stephen_w.]

Guilty,

 

I prefer my M-6 over the M-3 and M-4 because I don't always shoot in broad daylight sweet sixteen. I'll often use the M-6 meter and transfer the reading to the other camera.

[al_kaplan1]

I use a seperate incident meter with my M2 and M3 bodies, either a Weston Master V or a Minolta Autometer. Most of the time when I'm travelling light and just carry my CL I still use the Weston with the incident converter.

[shambrick007]

I�ve only owned un-meters M�s � two M2s and an M4. Just recently, a fellow forum member graciously let me borrow their M6TTL .85 for a week. To answer your question, I�d keep my M2, and by an M6TTL .85 if I could afford it. If I had to only pick one, I�d still go with the M6. I�m not good at guessing (non sunny day) exposures, and many times it�s too long/too late to glance at the off camera meter.

[george_conboy1]

I use M6s and an M5 - the meter is just too convenient to be without. There is a lot of talk about build quality, but I'm no engineer and they're all well built to me. I just sold my M2 (to Jim McBride - hello Jim) and my M3. I didn't use them enough once I got the metered bodies. Hey, if you want to revert to purism you can always ignore the meter and use your Luna Pro.

[doug_hagerman]

I moved from an M2 to an M6TTL over a year ago after over 20 years with the M2 as my only camera. I find that the semi-automatic operation of the M6 actually helps with the M2--I estimate the exposure first then verify it with the meter, which gives me immediate feedback about my estimating. So actually I think that the M6 has helped me work better with the M2. I was planning to get rid of the M2 but with all the recent notes about how good it is I'm not so sure any more. :*)

[Bill Blackwell Images]

The M2-R was my favorite camera of all time� But I bought an M6 several years ago and have never used an �old� M again. It's nice having a back-up body with features the main body doesn't have, but I have never used a self-timer (I mean NEVER). I finally got tired of just fondling the M2 and sold it in favor of an MP. In hind-site I wish I'd saved $1,200 or $1,300 and just gotten another M6. I have no use for AE, so I never even considered getting an M7.

 

After saying all of that though, if you're shooting with an M5, and you like it, I would encourage you to get another M5. They�re still not scarce and not expensive, so now might me a good time to get a second one.

[Rob F.]

Hi, Tony. I started with an M2. Today I use both metered and non-metered M bodies. When using two or more M's, I have had good results by keeping a wide angle lens on the M2, and a a normal or telephoto (or less wide angle) on a metered body or two. That way, I can zero in on selected areas with the metered body, and transfer the reading to the non-metered body. This is especially a good idea with my 21mm SA, since I can't meter with it anyway. An M6 would be wasted on it, so it can go on the M2 or M3.

 

Outside of this idea, I would have to say it depends on how much you feel the need for a built-in meter. Some people shoot Tri-X at 250 & take infrequent meter readings, or none at all. I shoot a lot of E6, so having at least one metered M along is a good idea for me.

[m_.]

my suggestion is DON'T give up your M5 - it is the best Leica M to date in my opinion. If you want a non-metered M, add one later when you have money. M2 and M4-P are two great examples.

[travis1]

I never use the meter on even metered bodies. I preset the exposure based on experience albeit just sufficient. I find shooting that way faster. For b/w in hc110 stand development, I get good results. Even colour films, Im not far from acceptable exposures. In daylight streets, it's f8 and thereabouts.

 

In low light, it's always f2 and 1/15th-1/60th, you can't go very wrong, with trix anyway.

 

Hence, I duuno why I bought the M6. ;) I may sell it one day.

 

YMMV definitely.

[asher]

Hey Travis- I thought I was the only meter-less nut.<P>Guessing exposure is like

skinny-dipping; once you get over the initial mental barrier, there's no going back to

the old way... or so I've been told ;-)

[george_b1]

With B&W film and print film, you can make excellent guesses for exposure, and the film latitude can take care of some of you incorrect guesses.

 

With slide film, correct exposure is a must. With our M4, I use incident exposure primarily. With our M7 (and formerly with our M6) I use the camera'a reflective metering when it should provide proper exposure; otherwise, I use an incident metering exposure and the M7 accurate shutter assists in providing a properly-exposed slide.

 

Reflective meters are a godsent in many situations - - but they aren't the be-all and end-all for proper exposure. You really have to learn just how to use them. Wherever possible, IMHO, incident metering provides better exposure.

 

M4 = incident, with reflective backup. M6 /7 allows for incident metering AND for reflective metering in tough situations.

[jonathan_reynolds]

Why go back? Carry a hand-held meter and have the option. With an accessory battery-compartment switch you can switch off the distracting LEDs (and prevent battery wastage with the M6). I use the on-board meter only about 50% of the time now. The only advantages in going back to an M3/M4 are if you prefer their rangefinders/viewfinders, and to have a self-timer.

[lee_shively]

When I use a camera without a meter, I tend to be more aware of the light. When I use a camera with a meter, I tend to follow the meter settings and pay less attention to the light. The on-board meter is convenient but not necessary for me.

[jay_.]

I use 2 M4's and 2 M7's. The M7 is definitely much quicker because of the AE with lock. Otherwise I don't find it much quicker to meter manually or use an M6 (the TTL is a bit quicker thanks to the middle LED)than to use a clip-on Sekonic L208, which *is* quicker than using a handheld because it's right there on the camera. As someone pointed out, the M6/M6TTL/MP have to be at eyelevel to meter, with the clip-on I've got my choice. Eyelevel is more accurate (use the 90 framelines to aim)but sometimes you want to preset the exposure before the shot. A nice feature of the Nikon FTn and Nikkormat cameras is a second meter needle display on the top-deck.

 

If the light isn't changing and my subject is in the same light as I am, very often I just manual-meter my hand and add 1.5 stops, it's a pseudo-incident reading you can make with any camera meter. Also outdoors with mostly clear blue skies I've been known to meter the north sky and go from there, as it's approximately middle-tone. As a long-time user of Hassys and Rolleis I'm about as comfotable with a separate meter as I am with a built-in.

[dan_brown4]

I have a single M6TTL, but I do the vast majority of my metering

with an incident meter (Luna-Pro Digital F). But, I shoot B&W so

I'm always more concerned about the shadows than the

highlights. When it comes to tricky indoor lighting, I usually find

my self wide open and down at the threshold of hand-holdability,

so those shots get handled in the darkroom anyway.

 

I have also migrated from frequent metering of most shots to

metering once and shooting for a while, The trick is to figure for

the shadows and don't sweat the highlights. The in-camera

meter always seems to be biased toward the highlights and I

wind up with under-exposed shadows. Dunno, maybe it's my

metering technique, but I always seem to bet beter density with

an incident meter. Spot metering every shot would be best, but

that would really slow the process down!

 

Remember, when in doubt, open up a stop. If really in doubt,

open up two stops.

 

HTH