35mm Cameras - Metering stand-outs?

[Paul Howell]

How did it differ from the standard F3?

The P version was weather sealed, had a built in hot shoe on the standard viewfinder, lacked a self timer, upgraded shutter.

 

[Pioneer]

Just go to ebay and look up Nikon F3s and Pentax LXs. It is startling to see percentage wise how many of the Pentaxes are broken.

I'm glad yours are ok.

Huss, my experience with Nikon is the complete opposite of yours. I have several working Pentax cameras, including my LX which is used continually. On the other hand I have a broken F4 in a box, an F that needed shutter work (expensive!), and an FM3a that quit working shortly after buying. The only one that did work reliably for me was the F6. That is certainly a very nice camera.

As already mentioned, all these cameras are getting older. I am planning on sending a couple of these off to Camera Rescue. They may be repairable or may be useful as parts cameras.

I'll keep my Pentaxes.

 

[waynecrider]

Question; I'd like to know if there is a camera available that shows the operator the contrast range of the scene without taking multiple readings?

 

[Huss]

Huss, my experience with Nikon is the complete opposite of yours. I have several working Pentax cameras, including my LX which is used continually. On the other hand I have a broken F4 in a box, an F that needed shutter work (expensive!), and an FM3a that quit working shortly after buying. The only one that did work reliably for me was the F6. That is certainly a very nice camera.

As already mentioned, all these cameras are getting older. I am planning on sending a couple of these off to Camera Rescue. They may be repairable or may be useful as parts cameras.

I'll keep my Pentaxes.

Dan, I also really like my Pentaxes.. my favorite may be the K2. I also have the MX, SuperA, ME, P30T which led to my quest for an LX. Which led me to disappointment!

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

The P version was weather sealed, had a built in hot shoe on the standard viewfinder, lacked a self timer, upgraded shutter.

Thanks!

 

[Huss]

Thanks!

It also has a raised shutter speed dial, easier to use on/off switch, Ti prism, no secondary lock to open the film back, larger film counter, able to meter all exposures, even before #1.

 

[Paul Howell]

Thanks, the only F3 I owned was the P version, keep forgetting that were more differences.

 

[flavio81]

Just go to ebay and look up Nikon F3s and Pentax LXs. It is startling to see percentage wise how many of the Pentaxes are broken.

I'm glad yours are ok.

I've found more than a share of broken F3 (meter broken), one of those was mine, in which case the meter broke down unexpectedly by simple storage of the camera in it's camera bag for a few months. Retrieved the camera from the storage bag -- meter dead forever.

 

[skorpiius]

Question; I'd like to know if there is a camera available that shows the operator the contrast range of the scene without taking multiple readings?

All I can think of is the Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 7's rear meter readout

And the EOS 3's multi spot function, which is of course taking multiple readings but they're all displayed at once

I don't think I've seen more detailed metering info displayed by a camera, although I'm curious if there's anything else in the running.

 

[skorpiius]

Truer words never spoken. OP said he already owned an F100. He should stick with it.

I just ordered an F80 as a backup, so I am now even more deeply embedded in the Nikon family

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

As per the Nikon repair manual for the P and T bodies there is substantial internal sealing points. From my conclusions the T body is sealed nearly as complete as the P versions, but the omissions for the P do add to the weatherproofing.
I still own and shoot the F3P thru two careers in news and then film based weddings, that body has been to NPS three times, first time was just a check up CLA but it came back with the sprocket spacing slightly off. I used for about a year then sent back with notes about the spacing and that CLA was perfect. Sent in the prism after I dented it when the body rotated off the 300/2.8 on the shoulder up a mountain on Kauai, it did a good bounce off a couple of lava boulders. Creased that fancy titanium prism cap and blew out the ADR window mirror assembly but the prism glass was undamaged and was still in register and I was able to finish the shoot. NPS wouldn't let me just buy that nice titanium prism cap due to the potential of fake P bodies (what I was told...) so I had to send the whole thing in. I really wanted to keep that creased prism it looked super bad ass but they wouldn't return it.
Most 'meter failure' in F3 happen when the left side right by the funky flash foot gets a tap; that FRE disc was almost always replaced when the newscameras went in for regular CLA's to NPS. The weakest part of a fine and quite durable camera it would be an intermittent firing issue first then the meter would go. If looking for a well used F3 look for a 'clean' side with no impacts and the meter is most likely fine. A sign of impact or dent on that side and I guarantee at some near point that meter will brick that body.

 

[film_man]

I have used/still own the following cameras with meters:
Canon EOS 300, 30, 3, 1N, 1V
Nikon F100, F5, FM2n, F3HP, Nikonos V
Rollei 2.8FX, 6003, 6008i
Leica R8

and probably a few more I can't remember.

They all meter accurately once you know how the meter works. The only times I get bad exposures with any of them is if I point them at the sun or have a backlit scene and don't use exposure lock. Yes I know that matrix metering with the latest Nikons and Canons is supposed to be clever enough to figure out backlit or the sun but the exposure lock button is there and all I have to do to be sure it works ok is point the camera at something I feel is about right, lock exposure and back to shooting.

 

[RLangham]

Can I say something controversial? The two cell "CLC" metering in most Minolta srT series cameras was actually fantastic for an early multi-cell averaging system in a lot of scenarios. Using a very simple circuit, it assumed that if there was a big contrast between the upper three-quarters or so of the scene and the bottom quarter or so (in landscape orientation with the camera right-way-up), that it must be a landscape with a bright sky and dim ground, so it would favor the bottom quarter. At other times it averages the whole scene without weighting. I know this is basic and primitive compared to everything else that's being mentioned but you'd be surprised how often it's right. Get you one of the models that show exposure information in the viewfinder and you'll find it's very usable for a consumer SLR from the 60's and early 70's, up to the point where it surpasses some lesser Nikons from the same period.

It's certainly the only camera where I find the metering is better than just alright. Most SLR's I use have fixed center-weighting that, used intelligently, gets you the same results as matrix metering without the complex circuitry that can randomly fail, but which get terrible results if used naively. Flat average metering is the worst, to be sure.

 

[Paul Howell]

Miranda EE has bottom weighted metering a 9% spot meter. When shooting horizontally the bottom weighed worked well, but when shooting vertical the spot meter was needed.

 

[Arthurwg]

Never had anything other than perfect B&W exposures using Matrix metering and P (program) for the kind of photography that I mostly did with my F100. Now that I'm coming to grips with the amazing complexities of my F6, I see that you can't use Matrix with contrast filters. Nikon says filters require Center-Weighted metering.

 

[Paul Howell]

Assuming that's true with all Matrix metering system, Minolta, Canon, Pentax, I'll need to keep that in mind, make sure I switch to Center when shooting with filters.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Reading this thread from the start it is quite a wonder how all those great photographs made with no camera mentioned in any post here were possible. Absolutely shocking. It's like reading a digital forum where every extra pixel makes a better picture, no matter what it actually looks like.

I the intent is to shoot film with some "composure" unrelated to DSLR shooting style, why do you need super complex metering in camera? How does one "contemplate" shooting a photograph with idiot proof metering? I see nothing to support this approach.

 

[RLangham]

Reading this thread from the start it is quite a wonder how all those great photographs made with no camera mentioned in any post here were possible. Absolutely shocking. It's like reading a digital forum where every extra pixel makes a better picture, no matter what it actually looks like.

I the intent is to shoot film with some "composure" unrelated to DSLR shooting style, why do you need super complex metering in camera? How does one "contemplate" shooting a photograph with idiot proof metering? I see nothing to support this approach.

On the whole I don't disagree. I think center-weighted is good enough for most photographers at most times, and I would really advocate spot metering for most circumstances where more precision is required. That being said I do love Minolta's CLC system.

 

[Paul Howell]

Matrix, center average, incident, spot, are only meters, tools, although AA took the vast majority of his photos without a meter or with a 30% angle Weston, when spot meters became available he was an early adopter, just another tool.

 

[RLangham]

Matrix, center average, incident, spot, are only meters, tools, although AA took the vast majority of his photos without a meter or with a 30% angle Weston, when spot meters became available he was an early adopter, just another tool.

To be sure, but most of us don't have his background in densitometry and few of us have hundreds of hours spent printing on fixed-grade paper, so I imagine that even with today's more forgiving photographic materials, most of us benefit immensely from a meter.

I regard myself as pretty good at guessing the exposure of a scene, but I have found that that works best on consumer color negative film with its approximate two-and-a-half stop tolerance for overexposure and stop and a half tolerance for underexposure. On black and white I always want a meter.

 

[Arthurwg]

Reading this thread from the start it is quite a wonder how all those great photographs made with no camera mentioned in any post here were possible. Absolutely shocking. It's like reading a digital forum where every extra pixel makes a better picture, no matter what it actually looks like.

I the intent is to shoot film with some "composure" unrelated to DSLR shooting style, why do you need super complex metering in camera? How does one "contemplate" shooting a photograph with idiot proof metering? I see nothing to support this approach.

When I started I made do with the paper than came with the film listing exposures under various conditions. Worked well enough as I remember.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Well those of us old enough to remember shooting with narrow latitude slide film can recall the finality of metering mistakes, operator imposed or equipment enhanced. Better meters and metering methods improved the overall success rate assuming that the gear was close enough in specifications, recall that mechanical shutters can have variations camera to camera and speed to speed and not all f/stops are created equal . While todays modern Digital Posse will only adhere to f/stops and shutter speeds in precise computer controlled 1/3 steps recall that light is a spectrum and consider the subtle joy of snicking the aperture down 1/10 of a turn to get that extra saturation from a slightly underexposed Kodachrome slide. (after metering correctly ha!).

 

[Deleted member 88956]

My main point here is that enjoying taking a photograph on film goes quite far from using complex in-camera electronic metering. It just takes almost all the fun away from it. So I challenged the apparent premise of this thread because of it. Nothing wrong with having that matrix thing inside a camera, it just takes picture taking in another direction. It's closer to snapping at what we think we like in the finder, not that much thought is given to the scene, and this is particularly so in B&W.

 

[RLangham]

My main point here is that enjoying taking a photograph on film goes quite far from using complex in-camera electronic metering. It just takes almost all the fun away from it. So I challenged the apparent premise of this thread because of it. Nothing wrong with having that matrix thing inside a camera, it just takes picture taking in another direction. It's closer to snapping at what we think we like in the finder, not that much thought is given to the scene, and this is particularly so in B&W.

Well, for B/W I enjoy spot metering. I think that's one of the most relaxing and contemplative experiences in photography, analyzing a scene's composition and light values for a good three to five minutes before even thinking about taking the picture--the more so because I do not find working in the dark room to be relaxing AT ALL, so I much rather get the contrast right on the negative if possible to smooth out printing. For positive film I would probably use it as well, but I've never shot any and frankly don't feel a desire to pay slide film prices.

There are conditions, however, under which I much prefer to have the speed of an in-camera meter or even occasionally aperture priority autoexposure-- taking pictures of people and animals requires speed as well as accuracy. The need for speed is why I consider a professional SLR incomplete unless it has exposure information and metering in the viewfinder-- oddly enough the consumer srT 202 meets that criteria while the prosumer Nikkormat Ftn only comes close.

 

[George Mann]

Well those of us old enough to remember shooting with narrow latitude slide film can recall the finality of metering mistakes

I have been shooting it since the mid '70's, and quite frankly cannot find the same satisfaction in shooting negative or especially digital.

The true-to-life look of slide film cannot be matched by any other medium. Nor can the apparent resolution.

Yes, the advent of the electronically controlled, stepless shutter made shooting it a lot easier.

I lamented the demise of Kodachrome more than anyone else. Provia is OK, but the film the film I like and prefer today is the current stock of ektachrome (and I hated the older stocks of it).