Internal meter or external?

[Anton Lukoszevieze]

All my camera have no meters, i shoot Leicas and a bit Olympus Pens and Nikon F, etc. I was thinking of getting a Leica M6.... i always use my Gossen Lunasix where ever i go, i was wondering whether an internal meter would simplify things, but i worry if exposures would not be so good... i shoot 90 percent black and white.... i do shoot slow, no need for speed...

 

[wiltw]

The issue is not really the question of 'internal' vs. 'external'...it is philosphically 'reflected light' vs. 'incident light' reading.
Both in-camera and handheld meters can do 'reflected' light readings and be similarly fooled by subject brightness deviating from 'midtone' (or by scenes which are predominantly 'high key' or 'low key' in content).
The key difference between in-camera and handheld reflected light metering occurs when the in-camera meter is capable of seeing the same Angle of View as the lens, because it is Thru-The-Lens and not a photosensor which is external to the camera body and reads only a fixed angle regardless of the lens mounted on the camera.
Incident light readings are predominantly done with handheld meters, although it is possible to put a white hemisphere collector over a lens to make the TTL meter act like an incident meter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer internal, but that is because the internal meters [Minolta, Nikon, Hasselblad] that I have are matrixed and they do a superior job. However I have a Gossen Luna Pro SCB for incident readings and when I am using a meterless camera.

 

[jspillane]

Both have their places. I get better results with a hand held meter, and it is generally my preference. More flexible, and a completely uncluttered viewfinder.
But, of course, it's one more object to carry around - doesn't bother me.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

For decades I relied on the internal meter of my EOS 1N, plus others that came and went (evaluative/shift, CW, Partial) and learned the skills to obtain the best results with each of the meter variants, and also those come-and-go scenes where modern meters get knickered and knotted. That said, when MF came along 10 years ago, I bypassed the rudimentary (but capable) TTL meter on the Pentax 67 and have always used a handheld multispot/incident meter (with multispot+mean-weighted averaging used 98% of the time). But my work is produced all in colour (transparency) where tolerance for exposure error is small, changes in light rapid, tones many and varied and where scenes cannot be repeated on a whim. Your work is in B&W, where you have much more latitude and can get away with 3+ stops of error — no such luck here!

On those occasions I shoot B&W with the EOS 1N (chiefly for fun, rather than serious work for which MF is reserved), the camera goes into centre-weighted (best for B&W) and fire away. That camera also has exposure steps of 0.3, 0.5 and 1 stops (excellent for transparency film) but of little practical use for B&W.

Verdict? Use an onboard meter where convenience and speed is desired, and a handheld meter where scenes present complexity of contrast/tone. I do not see any relevance in how fast or slow a photographer works, as long as he/she has a firm grasp on concept and visualisation and will come away with the scene that was envisioned, rather than dreamed about.

 

[ac12]

I use both.

When I first started with an unmetered camera (my father's Exacta), I used the piece of paper in the box of Kodak film; sunny 16.
With my first metered camera (Mamiya/Sekor 1000DTL), I started with TTL metering.
Then a few years later I switched to handheld incident metering (primarily for slides).
Since then, I am more partial to using incident metering.

But there are times when I have to use reflected TTL or a spot meter, when I cannot put myself in the same lighting as the subject. I just have to be aware of the reflectivity of the subject.

When I use my variable aperture lenses, I use TTL.

 

[Alan Gales]

I prefer internal, but that is because the internal meters [Minolta, Nikon, Hasselblad] that I have are matrixed and they do a superior job. However I have a Gossen Luna Pro SCB for incident readings and when I am using a meterless camera.

It's hard to beat Matrix metering. I was never big on internal meters until I discovered Matrix metering. I've shot a lot of sports using matrix metering. Now I'm a convert like you, Sirius.

For cameras without a meter I own a Pentax Digital Spot Meter but I'm used to it. An incident meter like your Gossen is easier to use.

I also own a Minolta Flash Meter for studio strobes. It has an incident meter too but I always grab the Pentax for shooting outdoors.

 

[narsuitus]

... i always use my Gossen Lunasix where ever i go, i was wondering whether an internal meter would simplify things, but i worry if exposures would not be so good...

All my medium and large format cameras do not have built-in light meters.

All my Nikon F2 35mm SLRs do not have metered viewfinders.

My Nikonos underwater camera does not have a built-in light meter.

My Argus C3 35mm rangefinder cameras do not have a built-in light meter.

All the meters in my M42 Pentax and Fuji 35mm SLRs may work but I never bothered to put batteries in the cameras.

When I shoot black & white film, I usually use the Sunny 16 Exposure Guideline.

When I shoot my large format cameras or my Fuji medium format rangefinders, I my use my battery-independent Gossen Scout 2.

When I shoot my Argus C3, Pentax Spotmatic, or Fuji ST705, I may use my battery-independent Sekonic Auto-Lumi model L-158.

When I shoot color slide and color print film, I may use one of my two battery-independent selenium light meters.

However, my battery-operated Gossen Super Pilot incident/reflected light meter and my battery-operated Wein 500 flash meter are the meters I use most often because they are more accurate and more sensitive to light than my selenium light meters.

When I get a new camera with a built-in light meter, I use my Gossen Super Pilot and the built-in meter until I am convinced that the built-in is consistently accurate.

The meters built into my Nikon F4 and Leica M6 are consistently accurate.



Light Meters by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[RalphLambrecht]

All my camera have no meters, i shoot Leicas and a bit Olympus Pens and Nikon F, etc. I was thinking of getting a Leica M6.... i always use my Gossen Lunasix where ever i go, i was wondering whether an internal meter would simplify things, but i worry if exposures would not be so good... i shoot 90 percent black and white.... i do shoot slow, no need for speed...

'intelligent metering isalways a combination of a lightmeter reading and human interpretation of it. From experience, I trust incident readings almost blindly but an internal matrix metering technology as in modern Nikons is also hard to beat. If all that fails use a Zone System approach and a spotmeter.

 

[wiltw]

Not sure why folks talk about the merits and foibles of matrix metering, when the OP has listed a bunch of vintage SLRs and mentioned others, with add on metering via metering prisms and none of which have anything more soshisticated in their metering choices that simply Averaging meters, or (at best) Center Weighted metering. Unless the OP considers cameras of very late 1970s vintage,or even more recent, there are only a few cameras with even spot metering capability in them...the Pentax Spotmatic and the Olympus OM-2SP coming to mind, and neither have the metering as 'add on to basic body'.

 

[thuggins]

I believe a TTL meter to be the best choice, as the meter sees the same scene you're shooting. My experience with external meters is that they can be problematic as it is difficult to know just what they are "seeing".

For B&W (or color print film) you shouldn't need a meter, anyway.

 

[Alan Gales]

I believe a TTL meter to be the best choice, as the meter sees the same scene you're shooting. My experience with external meters is that they can be problematic as it is difficult to know just what they are "seeing".

For B&W (or color print film) you shouldn't need a meter, anyway.

All meters are problematic. Well, perhaps I should say that the humans behind the meters are problematic.

Let''s talk about 35mm SLR meters. Most are center/bottom weighted. That is they mostly meter the center and bottom of the frame. What if you physically turn the camera to portrait mode? Well, then you get a center/side weighted metering which is far from ideal.

Let's say you are at the beach in Panama City Beach Florida with the beautiful white sand beaches. Trust me. I've been there and it is beautiful. You pull out your center/bottom weighted metered camera and what happens? Everything is under exposed. Now an incident meter would have read that right!

The best meter is actually a spot meter because you can read whatever you want. The problem though is that it requires the most human thinking. The human being the weakest part of metering.

This is why matrix metering is so popular! Almost stupid proof.

The important thing is to understand whichever meter we decide to use. We are the weakest link. Learn your meter!

 

[markbarendt]

'intelligent metering is always a combination of a light meter reading and human interpretation of it. From experience, I trust incident readings almost blindly but an internal matrix metering technology as in modern Nikons is also hard to beat. If all that fails use a Zone System approach and a spotmeter.

I agree Ralph.

I believe a TTL meter to be the best choice, as the meter sees the same scene you're shooting. My experience with external meters is that they can be problematic as it is difficult to know just what they are "seeing".

For B&W (or color print film) you shouldn't need a meter, anyway.

thuggins, each type of metering has its place and its challenges. Seeing the same scene is not necessarily an advantage, for example most any backlit or snow scene or night street scene or wedding dress details or....

Incident metering and handheld spot meters are actually very good at measuring the lighting at specific points in a scene it does take thinking a bit differently, but it's not hard it just takes practice.

As to not needing a meter for negative film, that depends completely on the expectations of the person shooting. While negatives have lots of latitude, which I enjoy, shooting wild simply shifts work from the camera to the printing process. Accurate camera exposure makes for fewer adjustments when printing and humans are notoriously bad at judging luminance.

 

[Les Sarile]

It is all about learning your meter - as well as the film's characteristics, in order to get the exposure you want. Until you get used to the Leica's internal meter, you can continue to use your external meter and cross reference the two.

 

[wiltw]

It's hard to beat Matrix metering. I was never big on internal meters until I discovered Matrix metering. I've shot a lot of sports using matrix metering. Now I'm a convert like you, Sirius.

Yet even matrix metering has its limitations, where it fails to give a satisfactory exposure. In this case, the target 'subject' is an 18% grey card, and it is seriously unexposed.

...rather than more properly exposed

 

[Dan Fromm]

Interesting discussion. It takes me back to 1970 when I got my first 35 mm camera, a Nikkormat FTN with an integral meter. TTL, center-weighted. I fairly quickly learned when its readings were correct but inappropriate and how to over-ride its recommendations. Back then I had a colleague who'd just transitioned from a meterless Minolta SR to an SRT 101, with integral meter and Minolta's CLC (Contrast Light Compensation, IIRC) system. She complained bitterly that she couldn't learn to recognize when the meter would go wrong. Too unpredictable.

Fast forward to now. I just got a Horseman Exposure Meter 69 to use for shooting 6x9 and 6x12. TTL, averaging. I'm well aware of what cos^4 does with short lenses and I like to use lenses shorter than normal so I calculated how the meter would lead me astray with short lenses. Short answer, use a center filter to even out illumination at the film plane. Without a CF getting good exposure across the film is impossible, one has to choose where in the frame to go badly wrong.

This isn't such a big problem with retrofocus lenses on 35 mm SLRs, but the lesson is clear. No metering system will solve all problems, all have to be used intelligently. Where the meter lives is much less important than how it is used. But integral meters are much handier than hand-held. For the record, I have four of them. LunaPro (= Lunasix 3), Master V, Sekonic L-328 and the original Minolta Flash Meter.

 

[wiltw]

[QUOTE="Dan Fromm, post: 1889360, member: 5834" the lesson is clear. No metering system will solve all problems, all have to be used intelligently. Where the meter lives is much less important than how it is used..[/QUOTE]

They ALL have some weaknesses, in addition to any Pro's they might have. There is no 'universally good' meter and the wise photographer knows when a different meter is better to use than another for a given situation.

 

[mynewcolour]

All my camera have no meters, i shoot Leicas and a bit Olympus Pens and Nikon F, etc. I was thinking of getting a Leica M6.... i always use my Gossen Lunasix where ever i go, i was wondering whether an internal meter would simplify things, but i worry if exposures would not be so good... i shoot 90 percent black and white.... i do shoot slow, no need for speed...

If you're happy shooting without an internal meter (which only you can answer) then take advantage of the prices of M4-2 / M4-P cameras. They are often less than 2/3rds of those of an M6.

Personally I don't think you are missing anything sticking with external meters. Quite the contrary.

 

[Alan Gales]

Yet even matrix metering has its limitations, where it fails to give a satisfactory exposure. In this case, the target 'subject' is an 18% grey card, and it is seriously unexposed.

...rather than more properly exposed

Yep. You are correct. Like I said in my post #12, Matrix metering is almost stupid proof!

Didn't Dirty Harry say, "You've got to learn your limitations!"? Well in our case we've got to learn our meter's limitations, whichever type of meter we choose to use.

 

[TheRook]

One obvious advantage of internal meter is speed of operation. With internal meter, I can be done in 2-3 seconds, and moving onto the next subject. Using a hand-held meter is a little more involved.

 

[rthollenbeck]

Yet even matrix metering has its limitations, where it fails to give a satisfactory exposure. In this case, the target 'subject' is an 18% grey card, and it is seriously unexposed.

...rather than more properly exposed

While I agree this gray card is not properly exposed .... I don't concur that this scene is improperly exposed. I can't say that I would get this heavily back lit scene "properly" exposed without bracketing it. Infact I would say properly in this case means you get the part of this scene you want metered or even a compromise of the parts to get the best over all exposure.
Even knowing your meter, it can be very difficult to know what part of this scene to meter and then to know .....even if you correctly messure the part you want..... what this might do to the rest of the scene and if you will really get what you want.
This is something that comes from experience more than the right type of meter. I for one am definitely not to proud to say that some times I just get it wrong and the problem isn't the meter.

I would say this: It is definitely not a waist of time to teach yourself to depend on handheld non-coupled meters. Learn this and you are set up for any piece of equipment you may transition to in the future.

 

[mynewcolour]

One obvious advantage of internal meter is speed of operation. With internal meter, I can be done in 2-3 seconds, and moving onto the next subject. Using a hand-held meter is a little more involved.

It depends how you use it.

Sometimes I'll take an incident reading or two as reference, set the camera and just shoot. I might not look at a meter again for hours.